Tapping an airborne shooter

[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.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

If the TAP on the leg doesn't hinder the shooter from performing his NORMAL offensive movement, and it affects him "MENTALLY" like I'm judging by the OP that it did or the OP assumed it "DISTRACTED" him, then yes, I'M PASSING!! And I'm only saying this for those little taps on the leg and butt or where ever on the mid or lower sections of the body. Again, TAP, not hit that causes the body part or leg to move, a frickin TAP that doesn't affect his normal or natural motion of shooting. I am passing, period. So we can agree to disagree, you can call that all you want, I will continue to not call it. And again, in my personal experience, IF I consistently make this TAP on the LEG call, it could and would have a direct affect on my officiating avocation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

Again, TAP, not hit that causes the body part or leg to move, a frickin TAP that doesn't affect his normal or natural motion of shooting. I am passing, period.

That is completely different than what you stated in your other post. In the post where I disagreed with you, you stated that you wouldn't call a tap that DID affect the shooter. There's one heckuva big difference between the two situations...as in night and day.

Contact that affects a shooter is a foul. Always. Contact that doesn't affect the shooter is incidental contact.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That is completely different than what you stated in your other post. In the post where I disagreed with you, you stated that you wouldn't call a tap that DID affect the shooter. There's one heckuva big difference between the two situations...as in night and day.

Contact that affects a shooter is a foul. Always. Contact that doesn't affect the shooter is incidental contact.

That little simple tap on the leg, that is probably done to distract the shooter is no more a foul as is having a hand in the face to distract the shooter. I guess I was moreless trying to convey is if it affects the shooter "mentally", that's his problem, not mine, and I'm not bailing him out.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

That little simple tap on the leg, that is probably done to distract the shooter is no more a foul as is having a hand in the face to distract the shooter.

If the hand in the face contacts the shooter, are you still saying that no foul has occurred? A tap on the face certainly might just distract the shooter a tetch also.

Sorry, but any contact by a defender that was deliberately done to distract the shooter, and the tap attained it's goal, is a foul. If the tap actually distracted the shooter, the defender is gaining an unfair advantage that was never intended by the rules.

Sorry, but using contact to distract a shooter is a foul. Always has been. Always will be.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If the hand in the face contacts the shooter, are you still saying that no foul has occurred? A tap on the face certainly might just distract the shooter a tetch also.

Sorry, but any contact by a defender that was deliberately done to distract the shooter, and the tap attained it's goal, is a foul. If the tap actually distracted the shooter, the defender is gaining an unfair advantage that was never intended by the rules.

Sorry, but using contact to distract a shooter is a foul. Always has been. Always will be.

So out of curiousity, when you report the foul in the OP, are you giving the "clipping" signal??

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If the hand in the face contacts the shooter, are you still saying that no foul has occurred? A tap on the face certainly might just distract the shooter a tetch also.

Sorry, but any contact by a defender that was deliberately done to distract the shooter, and the tap attained it's goal, is a foul. If the tap actually distracted the shooter, the defender is gaining an unfair advantage that was never intended by the rules.

Sorry, but using contact to distract a shooter is a foul. Always has been. Always will be.

This IMO is truely the bottom line. Contact intended to throw off a shot = foul.

[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?

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by truerookie

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?

Rookie, I am referring to the OP of the TAP on the LEG, period. You're talking apples and oranges.

Let me ask you something. A1 attempts a 3-pointer, B1 comes in blocks the shot but his momentum carries him and his arm into A1 before A1 returns to the floor and knocks A1 to the floor, what do you have? Furthermore, when the coach asks you, did the player block the shot first, which the answer is yes, and continues to state if it didn't affect his shot why are we shooting 3, what do you answer? This is the exact same play that happened to me in a region tourney game last night. So it's the same concept as your play, and as you can see, I had foul. BTW, me not being quick on my feet with a response it took me the 2nd of 3 free throws to answer his question.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

Rookie, I am referring to the OP of the TAP on the LEG, period. You're talking apples and oranges.

Let me ask you something. A1 attempts a 3-pointer, B1 comes in blocks the shot but his momentum carries him and his arm into A1 before A1 returns to the floor and knocks A1 to the floor, what do you have? I have a foul in this situation too!! Furthermore, when the coach asks you, did the player block the shot first, which the answer is yes, agree and continues to state if it didn't affect his shot why are we shooting 3, what do you answer? Coach, I would have given you the same call on the other end. This is the exact same play that happened to me in a region tourney game last night. So it's the same concept as your play, and as you can see, I had foul. BTW, me not being quick on my feet with a response it took me the 2nd of 3 free throws to answer his question.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is That little TAP may not be important to us as official(s). But, it can have an affect of the shooter.