Tapping an airborne shooter
 

District 1A playoff...Team A down by 12 with 3 minutes left in the game.

A1 goes up for a 3pt. shot...
B1 taps A1's leg, with his hand... in the official's judgement B1 did this on purpose to distract the airborne shooter...A1 misses the shot.

B1 has 4 fouls

Watta ya got?

1) Nuthin'

2) Foul on B1...B1 is disqualified...A1 shoots 3 FT's

3) Technical Foul on B1 for Unsportsmanlike conduct...B1 is disqualified...Team A shoots 2 FT's, with the lane cleared, and has the ball at the division line opposite the table for a Throw-in.

Rule 4-19 Article 1

A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal...offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead.

Rule 10-6 Article 2

A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponents hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

Under 10-6.2, I've got illegal contact. Therefore, since in the judgment of the official it hindered the opponent from performing a normal offensive movement, I've got a personal foul. We're shooting 3 FTs and B1 is DQ'ed.

B) shooting 3

defender is getting away with something if you don't call something.

One of the oldest plays around. It's right up there with the little nudge on the hip, the quick finger in the stomach and the little tap on the shooter's elbow. You have to call all of 'em because all of 'em can affect the shot. And in this case, A1 did miss the shot.

Door #2.

You can't call a technical foul by rule because there was contact during a live ball.

Yep, I had this happen the other night...

#2 is what I called...no complaints...and got a little snicker out of the player who thought he would get away with it.

Thanks JR...just generating a little discussion on some plays...maybe I'll have some video in the near future.

Just Asking ......
 

Even if you consider the contact incidental, but unsportsmanlike?

Just playing the Devil's advocate. I would call a personal foul here.

If it's incidental, it can't be unsportsmanlike. The two don't go together.

The contact can be deliberate and unsportsmanlike. You still have to call a personal foul of some kind though. By definition, illegal contact during a live ball can't be a "T".

Stupid Question ???
 

Agree. After posting this, and then while getting ready for work, thinking about the post, I thought, "What a stupid question", especailly since the contact was not incidental in the original post.

JurassicRefeee: Thanks for not "blasting me for the previous post.

But, at the risk of being "blasted out of the Forum", this is the only scenerio that I could come up with, very far fetched, never happen, very hypothetical: A1 has the ball in his hands for the first of two free throws (live ball). Teammate A2, on the lane line, in an unsporting manner, pulls down the shorts of B2. Why would A2 disconcert a teammate, so no disconcertion. What basketball play disadvantage would B2 be subjected to by the contact, since there was to be no rebound on thnis shot, so the contact is incidental.

Live ball. Incidental contact, no advantage. Unsporting contact act.

OK. Now I'm ready to take my "lumps". I'm off to work, so I won't read any follow up posts until tonight, so take your time. This post may be too stupid for zanyolne to respond to. I thought it up while in the shower and getting dressed, so I thought I would post it, so as not to have wasted my time.

OK, I'm ready now. "Blast away".

Look at it as the same as if A2 just turned and pushed B2 for no discernable reason. It is an unsporting act, but you can also call it an intentional personal foul on A2. It's also basically has the same result rules-wise, except for the throw-in spot, and it meets the rules definition.

Any consideration of calling a flagrant personal? I'm not letting a de-pantser (pretty sure that's not a word) stay in the game...

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.

Hey, What about A/D? :rolleyes:

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

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.:rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[QUOTE=NewNCref]Under 10-6.2, I've got illegal contact. Therefore, since in the judgment of the official it hindered the opponent from performing a normal offensive movement, I've got a personal foul. We're shooting 3 FTs and B1 is DQ'ed.[/QUOTE]

Wow, pretty harsh. Then what take him/her out back and put him in front of a firing squad??

[QUOTE=JoeTheRef]I give up -- why is this harsh? The penalty for fouling a shooter on an unsuccessful 3-point try is three FTs. The penalty for committing a fifth foul is DQ. B1 did both.

[QUOTE=bob jenkins]I apologize. Reading is fundamental. :D I didn't see the part where this was B1's 5th. I assumed something totally different. Thanks.

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.

Are you serious?

You have contact that <b>AFFECTS</b> 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 <b>didn't</b> affect the shooter, then it certainly is OK to let it go. It's a judgment call. But to judge that a tap <b>did</b> affect the shooter and then let it go is absolutely ridiculous imo.

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?

Joe The Ref disagrees with you.:)

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

Unless it truly affects the shooter and I am the only one in the gym that sees it, I got nothing. I say something to the player, and if he does it again, then I whistle it.

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 got #2. Thats just like a jab in the stomach during a shot. He wont do it next year!!!!

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.

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?

Sycophant.

I agree with JR 100%, I'm a ticklish guy and if somebody touches me on the stomach or ribs while I'm shooting, it totally blows my shot.

I'm thinking we might need a new foul category -- Tickling? And a new signal?

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.

Of course it's ok, and it happens all the time. Guy goes to block a shot, but the shooter is able to move mostly around him, defender ends up missing the ball and getting a light tap or brush on the arm or shoulder. This happens all the time. It doesn't affect the shot. I've got bigger things to worry about in my games than an "and 1" for a tap on the leg or shoulder.

As others have said on this forum, "This isn't golf". If a tap on your leg distracts you to the point that you can't focus on your shot, you need to find a new sport.

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

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

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.

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.

A tap on the shooting arm <b>never</b> affects the shot? Sorry, Skippy, but I ain't gonna buy that one.

There's little taps in certain places that can throw a shooter completely off. That usually includes any tap, no matter how light, on the shooting arm if the tap happens while the ball is being released. A light tap on the shooter's elbow can put the shot in the stands. That's the oldest trick in the book too.

And....if the tap is in a spot where it can break the shooter's concentration, and it does so imo, then I'll call the foul. If it doesn't, also imo, I won't.

It doesn't take much contact either on an airborne shooter to put him on his azz. Just brushing him on the way by will do it. You can't judge whether it's a foul or not by trying to factor in the severity of the contact.

Jmo.....soooooo.....I guess we disagree.

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.

If the hand in the face <b>contacts</b> 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 <b>contact</b> by a defender that was deliberately done to <b>distract</b> the shooter, and the tap attained it's goal, is a <b>foul</b>. 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 <b>distract</b> 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?? :D

Sackosh1t.

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

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Furthermore...I wave my private parts at your aunties.

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.

Did you consider the fact that B1 had 4 fouls to be significant?

I very much doubt their ability to perform on any aspect of this statement. :rolleyes:

Happy Valentines' Day
 

Jurassic Referee: Why are you being so polite to me? I expected to come home from work, get online, and get blasted for posting something as stupid as I did, but instead, I get a polite response, as if I were asking an important, interesting, or realistic question. In the past you have posted that you have never shared with us your gender. Could it be that you being nice to me because it's Saint Valentine's Day. By the way, I'm a male Billy, not a female Billie. "Not that there's anything wrong with that".

Billy, you asked a legitimate question. I answered it to the best of my ability.

Sometimes, it kinda seems that you just think way too much about inconsequential stuff. This is a discussion board. Take what you can out out of it and simply ignore the other stuff without worrying about anybody else.

Of course, I do gotta admit that I was kinda hurt that I never got a valentine from you.:mad:

Oooh, Greek roots. Good for you! Show the fig, baby!

Tap in the stomach
 

This is a foul for this reason: the stomach area is a bit more sensitive than other areas of the body. A tap there can force the stomach muscles to contract. That contraction will most certainly affect a kids shot. Now, can we tell if the tap truly distracted the shooter and caused a muscle reflex? Unless the shooter doubles over, probably not. However, having played and having been tapped in the stomach while shooting, I can tell you it can be a MAJOR shot altering event. Players attempt this/do this because they KNOW the affect it has on the shooter. No question in my mind: foul. I called this last year during a tourney. The kid asked why the call. I explained the stomach tap and the distraction. He just smiled, he understood. He didn't do it again the rest of the game. Foul.

Lord I can't believe they let you two get away with all this fawning.:D

Get a room please.:eek:

Thanks for reminding me what it was like to "tapped" in the stomach.

I will be more aware of this from now on.

So, can someone provide a list of body parts that are and aren't allowed to be tapped during a shot?

Elbow: NO
Leg: YES
Stomach: ???
Nose: ???

Back in HS we had an assistant coach who would play 1 on 1 with any player to 10 points with the "bet" being a Pizza. He was ~5'10", overweight but a great shooter. His caveat being that he was allowed 3 "got-cha" fouls. So first time you would go up for a shot he will "flick" very forcefully your "very venerable" male anatomy, and say "got-cha". Rest of game all he had to say was "got-cha" and you would flinch to the point that you could not concentrate on your shot. Not all "taps" are created equal.

No offense, but this is the silliest thing I've read in a while.

No offense taken
 

First a bit of logic: if it truly didn't distract the shooter, then why would a defender do it? Secondly, I guess you never got tapped in the stomach when you weren't expecting it. Third, some people are ticklish in that area., I am not one of them, but all my kids are. For clarification, I don't ascribe to this as a displacement issue. Being tapped/poked/jabbed, whatever you want to call it, will have a deleterious affect on a shooters shot and his concentration. I have no problem with the affect on the concentration, I have a problem with the physical response of the stomach tap.

A list?

OK.

A tap on any body part that you judge as having affected the shooter.

It's a straight judgment call. If you're sure that the tap affected the shooter, make the call; if you're not 100% sure, don't call anything. And trust your judgment and don't second-guess your calls.

Jmo.

rockyroad's on your ignore list...?

First, that's not logic. That's simply a rhetorical question. Why do they do it? Who knows? Why do coaches yell "3 seconds"? Does yelling it make it true? No. So does tapping (not pushing, remember) a player in the stomach make it effective? No. (By the way, that's a bit of logic. It's an argument from analogy. It's not a great argument, I'll grant you. :) )

Of course I have, and I can tell you firsthand that it doesn't cause a large enough reaction to affect a shooting motion. That's just ridiculous.

Who the bleep cares? Are we really going to be watching for ticklish reactions on the court? This "tap" should be around #417 on the list of things to be looking for during a shooting sequence. This isn't even a subject for serious consideration, IMO.

Well, we're 5 pages into the subject, so somebody must be taking the subject seriously.

Even the Monty Python parts........

Iow, I disagree with you. Some taps will definitely affect the shooter imo.

Scrapper
 

Belly taps affect my shot, always have. Contact that affects the shot is whistled in my games. Brother, you call your games how you like. Rock on.

Yes, Scrapper, and rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered but to spur discussion towards an end. I was hoping you'd use logic when pondering the rhetorical question. And, how you KNOW that tapping a player in the stomach is not effective in all cases makes you a much more effective ref than me. Wish I had your super powers, dude!