Hands in the face

[dtroberts]

What is the rule?

I coach/ref rec basketball. We use NFHS rules. There is a coach teaching his kids to keep their hands over the offensive players' eyes without touching. Is this right? wouldn't this be a safety issue? I've seen it called face-guarding and I've seen it called a foul if you do that to someone shooting. Help!!!!

[pizanno]

By rule, legal. Can't have a common foul without contact.

If you feel it puts the players at a safety risk (catching a pass), then you may call a unsportsmanlike T.

I would call a common foul the moment any minimal contact was made. No verticality or legal guarding position. Contact was not incidental (hands in the face for a reason)

Once the teams starts getting rung up, they'll get the message and should start playing real defense.

[Ron Pilo]

Actually Face guarding an opponent with the ball is nothing. On the other hand face guarding an opponent without the ball is a "T"

------------------
Ron
Seattle Officials - Women's Basketball

[tugger]

I agree with Ron, it's in the rule book. Face guarding an opponent without the ball is a technical foul.

[Matthew]

I do believe that is a "T" for taunting, ball or not

[pizanno]

NFHS rule 10-3-8d: (Player Technical Foul) Commit an unsportsmanlike foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conducts such as: (d) Obstructing the vision of an opponent not in control of the ball by waving hands near his/her eyes.

[Tom Cook]

I agree with Todd, at the kids level you are always going to have a percentage of coaches trying to re-invent the game. Explain to the coach that face-guarding opponent without ball is illegal and 99% will stop it without penalizing the kids.

[b_silliman]

Matthew:
NFHS Rulebook, page 58, Section 3 Player Technical, 10-8-d, "Obstructing the vision of an opponent not in control of the ball by waving hands near his/her eyes."

Waving the hands in front of a player with the ball, while it may seem wrong, is just a smart play.

[jackgil]

Know the rule but have never had to apply it and that includes "A" mens league. Would be a tough call to make (and sell)in a tight game. Would have to be blatant and force the offensive player to lose control of the ball for me to call it.

[Todd VandenAkker]

Neither have I ever seen it, and agree it might be a tough sell. By rule, it IS a T, but if feasible I would at least first try to let the player know that it is not legal, will be called a T if seen again, and please spread the word to his teammates.

[dtroberts]

b_silliman....waving your hands in front of the offensive player is one thing.....but to actually use your hands to cover the eyes of the player, while not touching, is something else. From this board so far, while it doesn't seem to be an actual "rule" some refs see it as a judgement call. I know when I played, you couldn't put your hand in the face of a shooter or you got called for a foul. Thanks for responding, everyone. Tell me more!!!!

[pizanno]

As much as we don't like certain situations (i.e. running up the score), we as officials can only apply the rules as they're written, not based on some emotional basis of "right or wrong"

So, if in your judgement, the defender has obstructed the vision of the shooter WITHOUT contact, it is a legal play.

Now, if "in your judgement" contact WAS made, however minimal (see my first post above), then call the shooting foul.

To me, this is similar to when B1 flops on the ol' block/charge WITHOUT contact. I almost always call that a block, mostly to protect A1 on landing (safety issue), but also to demonstrate that that type of "defense" won't be tolerated.

If B1 says "I didn't touch him", I reply, "then why did you flop?". They get the idea pretty quick and more often than not, stop flopping

If a coach questions it, my stock reply is "Your players will get the same call on the other end, coach" even though I know the other team doesn't do it.

For what its worth...that's what I would do

[This message has been edited by pizanno (edited February 16, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by pizanno (edited February 16, 2000).]

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pizanno on 02-16-2000 01:35 PM
Now, if "in your judgement" contact WAS made, however minimal (see my first post above), then call the shooting foul.

To me, this is similar to when B1 flops on the ol' block/charge WITHOUT contact. I almost always call that a block, mostly to protect A1 on landing (safety issue), but also to demonstrate that that type of "defense" won't be tolerated.

---

Agreed that if there's ANY contact with the face of the shooter, call it, but pass on it if no contact. But regarding the "flop" on the block/charge, it would be a hard sell to call a blocking foul if you otherwise had a clear player control foul with actual contact. Probably not a good idea. For me, and most veteran guys I know, it's a no call. Then you deal with the player and/or coach accordingly by telling them he's gonna have to take some contact before you're going to call a foul. In my experience, the players and (usually) coaches generally know when the kid is trying to draw a call. One team I had this year actually practices doing the flop, but I didn't hear much when I didn't call anything twice in the game. Easy to get faked out sometimes, especially when there is very mild contact, but if you can, I'd suggest holding the whistle.

[pizanno]

Todd-

You're right...I do usually pass with a no-call if there's minimal contact = no advantage, and try to communicate the merits of "good defense".

My line is "You have to be playing defense to take a charge". Similarly, we're taught to pass if the defender is standing beneath the basket (unless guarding the baseline dribble) because they're not 'really' playing defense.

I was specifically addressing the players who try to sway us with an "Academy Award performance" especially when there is NO contact. I feel they jeapordize other players' safety by tactics such as these (face-guarding, too?) and I'll try to discourage it by making a call against them in the spirit of proactivity

Doesn't happen too often, but I've seen it enough to have a fall-back plan.

[Todd VandenAkker]

Good thought process. I might warn the kid, then issue a "T" if he really does some major acting again, instead of calling a block on him (by rule, it would fall under unsporting conduct, though I've never actually called a T in this situation to my recollection). But I can't argue or disagree with your reasoning and what you're trying to do.

Oh, just a remark about the defender standing beneath the basket or behind the plane of the backcourt: Your statement actually fits with the NCAA (men's and women's) rules, but in high school it's still a legal position. See Casebook, 10.6.1D. Doing both levels of games gets confusing sometimes, trying to keep the slight differences straight in the particular game being worked at the moment.