Face guarding

[Jurassic Referee]

Is it also a technical foul to do it to a shooter?

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Is it also a technical foul to do it to a shooter?

Yes, of course, opponent is all the rule implies. ( I know I'm going to get blasted on this one, seems like a set up. What's your point JR?)

[PIAA REF]

Pg 83 of the case book spells this one out for you. The answer is yes, putting your hands in front of the face of a player with or without the ball is illegal and can be assessed a T. Common Sense needs to prevail though if a player is trying to block a shot or just defend and his or her hand passes by the eyes of the defender. We can't over officiate this one.

[Coach Bill]

Wasn't there a change to the rule recently (few years) to include the person with the ball?

[PIAA REF]

I believe the change was six years ago. Give or take 1. But as I stated above case book pag 83 takes care of it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

But as I stated above case book pag 83 takes care of it.

Oh?

[j51969]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Wasn't there a change to the rule recently (few years) to include the person with the ball?

I don't recall that being a change. Just the other part to the ruling that's always been there.

[Adam]

I think the old rule used to specify a player without the ball.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle

Yes, of course, opponent is all the rule implies. ( I know I'm going to get blasted on this one, seems like a set up. What's your point JR?)

Nope, it's not a set-up. I was just wondering how many officials knew the right interpretation. I know that the vets do, so I'll quit playing and give you the answer.

The "faceguarding" rule was changed in 2004-05 to include the player with the ball. Before that, it only applied to a player without the ball. So, up until then it was legal to put a hand in the face of a shooter. But when they changed the rule, the FED also told us how to apply the rule on an accompanying POE. And here's part of that direction:

POE 4A: "The committee does not intend good defense to be penalized. Challenging a shooter with a "hand in the face" or fronting a post player with a hand in the air to prevent a post pass are examples of acceptable actions. The rule and point of emphasis is designed to penalize actions that are clearly not related to playing the game of basketball properly and that intentionally restrict vision. Often, that occurs off the ball or as players are moving up the court.".

It is unfortunate that wasn't added to the case play.

[Judtech]

I had this situation happen the year prior to the rule change The player WITH the ball kept waving in the face of her defender. The coach kept asking me to give her a "T". I told her that rule only applied to the defensive player. She harped on me the whole game (in a nice way) I eventually told her that it would be a BETTER idea to have her player steal the ball while the offensive player was distracted waving her arms. Her player did this 3 times and the player stopped. I am glad they changed the rule!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I had this situation happen the year prior to the rule change The player WITH the ball kept waving in the face of her defender. The coach kept asking me to give her a "T". I told her that rule only applied to the defensive player.

Um, no, methinks you misremembered the rule.

The rule applied to obstructing the vision of an opponent without the ball. It didn't matter whether that opponent was on offense or defense. Iow, the coach had the concept right.

And to make sure that I didn't misremember it also, I went back and checked it in old rule book.

[Judtech]

Actually, I sent a message to our state body regarding the rule, as did the coach. We were both told my interpretation was correct. The following year during the annual rules clinic the change in the wording and penatly was emphasized and this particular play was mentioned as NOW being a "T" where as the year before it would not have been. (It actually felt nice being the anonymous celebrity ref in the meeting!) There was nothing addressing an OFFENSIVE player putting a hand in the face of a DEFENSIVE player.
Now, they may have been wrong, which I can deal with, but at the time according to "the powers that be" it was the correct non call