Is It a Foul?
 

Hey there. Just a weekend baller with a question to officiating experts out there.

I was wondering about a call that I got into a "discussion" with friends about this past weekend. A foul was called in which Player A went up for a jumpshot while being defended by Player B. Player B stepped forward, while Player A was in the act of shooting. During the shot, Player B lightly tapped Player A in the stomach.

Technically-speaking, is Player A entitled to a foul?

I would not call it if it was nothing more than a light tap. However, I would be telling player B to knock it off.

Technically-speaking, you make the call;

4-19-1 A personal foul . . . involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements.

That's about all we have to go on. So in your sitch, it's judgement.

From my interpretation of your description, I would probably pass on it. My reasoning would be that it did not hinder the opponent. However, definitely a HTBT sitch.

OK. I see. It was a pickup game but I saw it as a foul.

I don't think this scenario is so cut and dried. I have seen this more and more lately. It is definitely an attempt by the defense to hinder the shooter's concentration on the shot. If there is contact, I am more inclined to call this now more than I ever was before. It's a cheap attempt to alter a shooter's shot with no attempt to play the ball. Often there is no contact or maybe slight contact with the shooter's jersey. But if I see a defensive player's hand contact the shooter's body, I may call this a foul early. That should get the defense to knock it off.

Contact is not necessarily a foul.
An attempt to alter the shot is not necessarily a foul.
The defender's intent to alter the shot is not necessarily a foul.
Behavior you dislike is not necessarily a foul.

Call a foul if the contact in fact hindered the shot. Otherwise, tell 'em to knock it off.

Intentional contact that is intended to do nothing more than alter an airborn shooter's shot is getting more attention from me than incidental contact.

I'm not saying I will always call it a foul, but I am more inclined to than not if there is contact.

Ref: TWEEET!

Coach: "Mr. Referee, Sir, May I politely ask why you called that foul?"

Ref: "Sure coach, he attempted to hinder the shooter's concentration."

Coach: :eek:

That's just stupid.

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.

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.

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.