Tapping an airborne shooter

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Scrapper what not? That tap can cause the shooter to return to the floor awkwardly.

Maybe I'm not picturing it correctly, but a "tap" -- like somebody tapping on your shoulder to get your attention -- is doesn't seem likely to throw off the balance of the shooter. Certainly not enough to affect his landing.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Scrapper what not? That tap can cause the shooter to return to the floor awkwardly.

If it DOES cause him to land awkwardly, I have a foul.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I guess I'm in the minority, but there's no way I'm calling a foul for a "tap" on the shooter's leg.

The "tap" definetly, at least IMO, affected the shot....but then so does faking like you are going to "submarine" an airborne shooter with the ol' duck your head and dive at the guys privates.

The difference is there was contact...the contact was not incidental...the contact was ON PURPOSE...the contact affected the shot...FOUL...at least IMHO.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

The difference is there was contact...the contact was not incidental...the contact was ON PURPOSE...the contact affected the shot...FOUL...at least IMHO.

First, intentional contact CAN be incidental. Think about a defender reaching out to "find" the player he's guarding. You're not going to let him leave the hand there for a prolonged period of time and you're not going to let him hold the offensive player. But the initial contact to "find" the offensive player is intentional and incidental. I would humbly suggest that this tap on the leg is intentional and incidental.

Second, I have a really hard time imagining how a tap on the leg can affect a jump shot. There's no way that it hindered the shooter's offensive movements, and I think there's very little chance that it affected his balance enough to alter his landing.

If you truly believe that it affected the shot, then I guess you have to call a foul. But I can't honestly believe that it did -- unless, as I said earlier -- I'm simply not picturing it correctly.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

First, intentional contact CAN be incidental. Think about a defender reaching out to "find" the player he's guarding. You're not going to let him leave the hand there for a prolonged period of time and you're not going to let him hold the offensive player. But the initial contact to "find" the offensive player is intentional and incidental. I would humbly suggest that this tap on the leg is intentional and incidental.

Second, I have a really hard time imagining how a tap on the leg can affect a jump shot. There's no way that it hindered the shooter's offensive movements, and I think there's very little chance that it affected his balance enough to alter his landing.

If you truly believe that it affected the shot, then I guess you have to call a foul. But I can't honestly believe that it did -- unless, as I said earlier -- I'm simply not picturing it correctly.

I guess I'm in the minority with you as well. I'm not making this call. If a tap on a leg affects the shooter, then in all honesty, that's the shooter's problem. If it's the same tap on arm/elbow then I have a foul.
And this is just my opinion.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

If a tap on a leg affects the shooter, then in all honesty, that's the shooter's problem.

Are you serious?

You have contact that AFFECTS a shot and that's just peachy keen in your opinion?

Are you really serious, Joe?

Lah me.......

If an official thought that a tap didn't affect the shooter, then it certainly is OK to let it go. It's a judgment call. But to judge that a tap did affect the shooter and then let it go is absolutely ridiculous imo.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

I guess I'm in the minority with you as well. I'm not making this call. If a tap on a leg affects the shooter, then in all honesty, that's the shooter's problem. If it's the same tap on arm/elbow then I have a foul.
And this is just my opinion.

Hold the presses a sec. So, that I understand correctly. A tap is nothing on an airborne shooter. (incidental contact).

So, I take it from YOUR perspective if a defender makes contact on an airborne shooter while the airborne shooter is in the air, in an attempt to box out the shooter prior to the airborne shooter returning to the floor and the box out doesn't affect the shoot. You are going to pass because it doesn't affect the shot?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If you truly believe that it affected the shot, then I guess you have to call a foul.

Joe The Ref disagrees with you.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

The defender isn't playing the ball. Seems like an intentional foul to me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I guess I'm in the minority, but there's no way I'm calling a foul for a "tap" on the shooter's leg.

I call it, and quite frequently. 1/2 the time the guilty party gives me the "you got me" smile. The other 1/2 their coach yells to the player "he caught you". It's contact during the shot and in my judgement it affects the shot.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I guess I'm in the minority, but there's no way I'm calling a foul for a "tap" on the shooter's leg.

Even if the tap slightly displaces the shooter? Doesn't take much when he's in the air and that's all that's needed to alter a shot. It's like that l'il wee tap on the elbow .....it doesn't look like much but that'll put the shot in the third row every time.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Even if the tap slightly displaces the shooter?

There's no way a "tap" displaces the shooter. It's not a push, not a slap, not a hold. He tapped him. I'm picturing a tap like tapping somebody on the shoulder to get their attention. That tap might displace a 3 pound basketball, but it absolutely does not displace a 100+ pound teenager. It just doesn't.

It's like that l'il wee tap on the elbow .....it doesn't look like much but that'll put the shot in the third row every time.

It's not like the tap on the elbow. The tap on the elbow actually changes the shooting motion. A tap on the leg doesn't change anything, and doesn't inhibit the normal offensive movement of the player.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

There's no way a "tap" displaces the shooter. It's not a push, not a slap, not a hold. He tapped him. I'm picturing a tap like tapping somebody on the shoulder to get their attention. That tap might displace a 3 pound basketball, but it absolutely does not displace a 100+ pound teenager. It just doesn't.


It's not like the tap on the elbow. The tap on the elbow actually changes the shooting motion. A tap on the leg doesn't change anything, and doesn't inhibit the normal offensive movement of the player.

I'm with Scrappy on this.

That's got to be 1 healthy tap to displace a human. If that's the case then we're not discussing a tap, we're discussing a push.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I'm with Scrappy on this.

Sycophant.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

There's no way a "tap" displaces the shooter. It's not a push, not a slap, not a hold. He tapped him. I'm picturing a tap like tapping somebody on the shoulder to get their attention.

What if a defender does taps the shooter on the shoulder then? And does get the shooter's attention? Is that OK? How about a tap on the nose with no displacement just when the shooter is letting the ball go on the shot? Little flick of the ear OK too?

Iow, I'm not talking "displacement"; I'm talking "breaking the shooter's concentration. Does that make any difference to you?