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.

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."

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

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.

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.

Agreed.

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

Thank you. :D

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. ;)

This is a good statement. I think most agree that intentional contact and incidental contact will be scrutinized differently.

I had meant to bring this topic up over beers with a few guys and forgot about it. Had this happen over summer with sloppy AAU ball. Again, like anything else, advantage/disadvantage. In my case the defender clearly was looking to disrupt the shot by subtley giving a discrete poke to the stomach. I did not toot, I told him I saw what he was doing and to stop it. He did.

I put it in the hand check category. Out front, in the open, I'm probably calling it, a mosh pit down low, probably not.

It’s all pretty much a had to be there situation. If the defender taps/pokes the shooter after the shot is released, probably a no call. If he kind of just taps him as a course of his body’s movement settling into a defensive position, it’s probably incidental as long as it didn’t interfere with the shot.
If, however, the defender is standing there and as the shooter goes up, the defender lift his hand, sticks out his finger and then pokes him in the belly button while the shooter is in the air, I would call the foul. What would be the proper mechanic for tickling? :rolleyes:

I think this is it.

http://www.hotxmastoys.net/images1/tmxticklemeelmo.jpg

I think this breaks it down pretty well. I would only add that the purpose of this tactic is often not for that shot, but to cause the shooter to exercise caution on future shots. I was taught this technique by an older player when I was in school, with the rationale that the officials were most likely looking at the hands (yeah, I know, but I was 15) and the shooter would instinctively flinch the next time whether you actually poked him or not.

I have a friend who does this to me quite often in pickup games. I am sad to say that it is pretty effective on me. I do start looking for it, and I sometimes flinch a bit. I'd like to see it called, if it is intentional.

Wouldn't you have a call if an opponent said, "Choke," just before the release of a free throw. Seems like a similar intent. (Eric does that, too.)

That is a completely different situation (disconcertion) and by rule does not apply here. Intent or otherwise.

This is post #29 on this thread, "Is It a foul". Apparently, officiating basketball is not as easy or "cut and dried" as some think.

Thanks a lot shawty. :)

It appears Eric is a pain in the ***!

Used to see this quite often a few years back, but not much lately. There's only one reason for this intentional act of a slight jab to the abdomen, to gain an advantage. Why else do they do it? It makes the shooter flinch and then maybe in their head waiting for it on other shots. It's a foul. As I remember, didn't need to call it often, usually stops right away.

Realistically, this will not often be called a foul simply because it will not be seen. The attention of the official is directed higher up. Even when a player is hit in the face, often the only way it is noticeable, is because the contact causes the affected player to flinch.

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.