Tapping an airborne shooter

[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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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

Some would have you believe differently. They would undermine the core beliefs we hold near and dear. They threaten our economy and our very way of life. We call them terrorists. Seems like good ol Al'Qaeda had finally found out how to undermine society through bad officiating and screwing up athletic contests.

Anyway homeland security should be along shortly to clean the mess up. Keep at it.