Is It a Foul?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Agreed, that's why it's important to use the proper terminology as has been pointed out (which was my point).

Huh? If the defender pokes the airborne shooter in the stomach, I will have no problem explaining that to a coach.

[grunewar]

The OP said the player was "tapped in the stomach."

I have no problems telling the coach to tell his player to knock it off or to call the foul if warranted.

But, I personally will not tell the coach it was an attempt to "hinder his concentration."

You can use those terms, I won't.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by grunewar

The OP said the player was "tapped in the stomach."

I have no problems telling the coach to tell his player to knock it off or to call the foul if warranted.

But, I personally will not tell the coach it was an attempt to "hinder his concentration."

You can use those terms, I won't.

What are you talking about? Who said I would say that to a coach? Only in your mind did that conversation occur. I didn't even say I would automatically call it a foul. Hell, it could possibly even be an intentional foul depending on how hard the kid poked the other kid. I'm just saying I wouldn't just pass on it and say "knock it off" if the contact was enough to warrant a foul.

[SAK]

I know that this is changing a little bit but, what happens if the shooter is tapped on the lower leg? Is there a difference in what you would call?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by SAK

I know that this is changing a little bit but, what happens if the shooter is tapped on the lower leg? Is there a difference in what you would call?

It depends. I don't even know if I'd call the poke in the stomach. It just depends on the contact and how it effects the shooter.

[shawtydoowop]

As the player who called the foul, I saw it as a play that was outside of the realms of legal defense. Of course, in pick-up we tend to do things that are not within the rules of organized basketball but...I didn't think it was a mystery that this technically is a foul. I wouldn't normally call it but I don't think there should be a big mystery if it is called.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by SAK

I know that this is changing a little bit but, what happens if the shooter is tapped on the lower leg? Is there a difference in what you would call?

When he "tapped" the shooter's leg, do you know how much pressure per square inch he applied?

[SAK]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

When he "tapped" the shooter's leg, do you know how much pressure per square inch he applied?

The tap is just that, a tap. Just enough so that the shooter notices but not enough to throw them off balance.

I have been told in several camps over the summer that this needs to be called and all too often it is not.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by SAK

The tap is just that, a tap. Just enough so that the shooter notices but not enough to throw them off balance.

I have been told in several camps over the summer that this needs to be called and all too often it is not.

I disagree that a tap on the leg has the same effect as the jab to the stomach. There is a much stronger reflex to protect your "vitals" than your extremities. Depending on how focused the shooter is, he may not even feel the tap on the leg. A tap on the leg may distract you, but the same tap to the gut would distract you more.

As for whether it's seen, the further the official is from the play the more likely it is to be seen.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Smitty

What are you talking about? Who said I would say that to a coach? Only in your mind did that conversation occur. I didn't even say I would automatically call it a foul. Hell, it could possibly even be an intentional foul depending on how hard the kid poked the other kid. I'm just saying I wouldn't just pass on it and say "knock it off" if the contact was enough to warrant a foul.

Smitty, I don't want to be argumentative here. The terminology "hinder the shooter's concentration" was introduced earlier in the thread. I was just pointing out I personally would not use that, and only that, terminology to explain it to a coach as it may sound, as you said, "stupid."

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Smitty, I don't want to be argumentative here. The terminology "hinder the shooter's concentration" was introduced earlier in the thread. I was just pointing out I personally would not use that, and only that, terminology to explain it to a coach as it may sound, as you said, "stupid."

And I never said I would ever say that to a coach. I was describing the intent of that act. It is not a basketball act. It is a weak move to make up for a lack of real defense. If the kid pokes the shooter with enough contact to warrant me blowing the whistle, that's an easy call for me. I can easily tell a coach that the contact from the poke in the stomach was a foul.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Smitty

And I never said I would ever say that to a coach. I was describing the intent of that act. It is not a basketball act. It is a weak move to make up for a lack of real defense. If the kid pokes the shooter with enough contact to warrant me blowing the whistle, that's an easy call for me. I can easily tell a coach that the contact from the poke in the stomach was a foul.

Agreed.

[Adam]

I'm with Smitty. On this one, I'm going to have a much lower threshold for deciding if the contact affected the shot.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Agreed.

Thank you.

I'm sorry to have been so defensive, but I have a pet peeve for people who use ridiculous words when describing things to coaches. The fact that you accused me of doing so got me all riled up.