Basketball faceguarding!!!

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This year the rule number has changed. It's now 10-3-6d. Go figure.

HA! I was really confused for a few moments. I thought I was going to have to go get another cup of coffee because either my book was misnumbered or I have lost my mind over night. Good catch!

-Josh

[jdmara]

Am I misinterpreting this rule or misunderstanding the OP?

Faceguarding is not an illegal. Faceguarding an opponent is having your back turned to the ball and you face your opponent in an attempt to deny him/her the ball. The illegal part of this rule is to "purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his/her eyes." I believe we have two distinct actions in the case play (10.3.6 SITUATION A) and they might be misinterpretted as one action. Faceguarding does not mean having your hands in the opponent's face (or at least that's not the way I've been taught as a youth and seen it been taught by many collegiate coaches).

"10.3.6 SITUATION A: Does holding or moving a hand or hands in front of the
face of a player who has the ball, by an opponent who is in a legal guarding position, constitute unsporting tactics? RULING: Yes. The described action is illegal. It is unsporting for a guard to take a position behind a post player, or to take a position facing an opponent, or to take a position with his/her back to the ball and facing the opponent and then in either case, wave or hold the hands in front of the opponent’s eyes so that the opponent cannot see. Holding or waving hands near the eye for the ostensible purpose of obstructing an opponent’s vision is unsporting. (10-3-6c)"

Just my thoughts

-Josh

[Adam]

My read of the OP was that by "faceguarding," he meant obstructing the vision with the hands.

[grunewar]

Josh - I was thinking the same thing as the post developed.

"Faceguarding" (as possibly this ref interpreted the play) as the "NFL-like" term of guarding a player with your back to the ball and never "playing the ball" is not a basketball violation or technical foul. My interpretation for basketball is the part about "waving or holding the hands in front of the opponent’s eyes so that the opponent cannot see" is the definition of "Faceguarding" I use. JMO

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My read of the OP was that by "faceguarding," he meant obstructing the vision with the hands.

Originally Posted by grunewar

Josh - I was thinking the same thing as the post developed.

"Faceguarding" (as possibly this ref interpreted the play) as the "NFL-like" term of guarding a player with your back to the ball and never "playing the ball" is not a basketball violation or technical foul. My interpretation for basketball is the part about "waving or holding the hands in front of the opponent’s eyes so that the opponent cannot see" is the definition of "Faceguarding" I use. JMO

This is why I wanted to make the statement. I think it's a little confusing, especially for newer officials to read. Waving of the hands in front of the opponent's eyes is to obstruct the opponent’s vision is unsporting and earns a technical. The mere act of facing an opponent (guarding) with your back to the ball, is a legal act. (Or that's my interpretation)

-Josh

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdmara

This is why I wanted to make the statement. I think it's a little confusing, especially for newer officials to read. Waving of the hands in front of the opponent's eyes is to obstruct the opponent’s vision is unsporting and earns a technical. The mere act of facing an opponent (guarding) with your back to the ball, is a legal act. (Or that's my interpretation)

-Josh

I guess I never would have considered that to be what someone means when they say "faceguarding."

[mick]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I guess I never would have considered that to be what someone means when they say "faceguarding."

Well, you apparently didn't have the same youth coaches, or see the same many college coaches teaching that as Josh did.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mick

Well, you apparently didn't have the same youth coaches, or see the same many college coaches teaching that as Josh did.

Guess not.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by mick

Well, you apparently didn't have the same youth coaches, or see the same many college coaches teaching that as Josh did.

I don't know why the term, faceguarding, sticks out so prominently with me. Am I wrong in my definition? I'm definitely not trying to step on a soapbox and say what I think it right, if it's truly not the intent of the rule.

-Josh

[OHBBREF]

he NCAA has made this simplier:
" Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing hand(s) near her eyes. "

the wording is the same for men and women the penalty is different - it takes away any option if you are trying to obstruct vision you now have the option to deal with it.

[RavishingRev]

Okay, so now I am back to my original thought that it was not a violation, but now I must defend my thought by saying that it was not a violation because the defender was not specifically waving his hands right in the face of the offensive player. The more i think about it, the more I believe that to be the case. Agreed???? or no???

[mick]

Originally Posted by RavishingRev

Okay, so now I am back to my original thought that it was not a violation, but now I must defend my thought by saying that it was not a violation because the defender was not specifically waving his hands right in the face of the offensive player. The more i think about it, the more I believe that to be the case. Agreed???? or no???

Well, yeah !?!!
It ain't a foul for lookin' at an opponent.
Even Josh wouldn't get called for that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RavishingRev

Okay, so now I am back to my original thought that it was not a violation, but now I must defend my thought by saying that it was not a violation because the defender was not specifically waving his hands right in the face of the offensive player. The more i think about it, the more I believe that to be the case. Agreed???? or no???

All right, Rev, I think you need to more clearly describe what was being done.