See the quote below.

"A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by rule."

This is where I was leaning on this, I just hate deferring to the intent and purpose of the rules if I don't have to.
The fact is, it's not a basketball play, so I have no problem using this to call the foul.
Given that the rule basis is sort of stretched, though, I have no problem with an official who choses to warn the player before calling the foul.

I have a foul. Even though it doesn't "appear" that it affected the shooter (even though they missed) it is a cagey play that we need to be on the look out for. Plays like this and "the spear" have been around forever, some on this board may have used it in their playing days, who knows?!;) One foul usually takes care of the problem. Now the shooter can shoot without thinking their leg or other body part will be contacted, and helps keep the defense honest.

The important question would seem to be if you call this a foul wouldn't it mean you need to call it unsportsmanlike?

How so?

Because the defender was basically just trying to be a pain in the arse, and not really defending the shot in any manner. The defender knew very well what he was doing.

That said, a technical foul seems very out of place here. If anything, it's one of those "don't do that" hand-check fouls. If you call it, it seems "ticky-tack" to some. If you don't, it's "hey ref, didn't you see what he did?!" to others.

I submit one way to handle it is to call the foul, and give the defender a look as if to say, "what did you do THAT for?" I believe all would get the message there.

Unsportsmanlike in Panther's rule set (FIBA) is equivalent to our intentional foul. He's essentially saying we should call it intentional, unless he was speaking our language and suggesting we call a T.

Thing is you can't call a T for this by rule since it's live ball contact.

I was using our language (pretty sure this equates to intentional in your rules) below is section I'm looking at. Keep in mind "contact" here is already meant to be understood as illegal contact. Note: I personally take exception to the way we are asked to interpret some of these rules but everyone's got a boss right.

36.1.3 To judge whether a foul is unsportsmanlike, the officials should apply the following
principles:
 If a player is making no effort to play the ball and contact occurs, it is an
unsportsmanlike foul.
 If a player, in an effort to play the ball, causes excessive contact (hard foul), it is
an unsportsmanlike foul.
 If a defensive player causes contact with an opponent from behind or laterally
in an attempt to stop a fast break and there is no opponent between the
offensive player and the opponents’ basket, it is an unsportsmanlike foul.
 If a player commits a foul while making a legitimate effort to play the ball
(normal play), it is not an unsportsmanlike foul.

The second and third cases are out of the question, here. So we have to consider 1 and 4. What's "play the ball"? It's not "going for the ball" which is even not considered good defense, in general; moreover, this interpretation would rule any off-ball foul as unsportsmanlike, for example.

"Playing the ball" is doing any defensive or offensive movement which is normal during a basketball game (it's the remark in the fourth case). "Playing the ball" may cause illegal contact, because of different players' skills, defensive or offensive errors and so on. Pushing a dribbler from behind is not "playing the ball", nor it is tripping. Just some examples.

Is jumping in front of a shooter legitimate defense? I'd say yes. Is the contact excessive? I'd say no, in the original play (assuming contact took place). Therefore no U.

Ciao

That's intereseting though I see it differently. Jumping in front of a shooter is legitmate defense, reaching out and hitting them in the leg when the ball is not down there is not. (IMO)

I understand the officials that in a given situation would let it slide as incidental at some high levels, or want to warn the kid first at a lower level to make sure the kid knows they're doing something wrong.

So here was my train of thought.
- Is it a foul at all? I tend to think yes. He is taking liberties at airborne shooter who can't protect himself, and while not immediately disadvantaging the opponent is creating contact that is unnecessary and could lead to rough play. Therefore illegal contact. Foul.

touch or 'jab' an opponent with or without the ball is a foul, as it may
lead to rough play.

- Is the foul now unsportsmanlike? If it is foul, he not making an attempt at the to play the ball and doesn't make it across to to challenge the shot. He's simply reaching out and whacking the shooter in the leg to try to distract him. As i look at it, if its enough that I need to blow the whistle its going to be an unsportsmanlike or tech.

If a player is making no effort to play the ball and contact occurs, it is an
unsportsmanlike foul.

A technical foul by a coach, assistant coach, substitute, excluded player or team
follower is a foul for disrespectfully communicating with or touching the officials,
the commissioner, the table officials or the opponents, or an infraction of a
procedural or an administrative nature.

As a shooter, this type of play is a foul. I will agree with others that it is not a basketball play and needs to not be ignored. I could see the argument for a technical as I view this similar to placing the defenders hands in front of an offensive players face in that the sole purpose of the tap is to distract the offensive player through a borderline unsportsmanlike act. Although a case can be made for that perspective, I am simply calling a foul on this play and moving on. To me, an advantage was gained by the defensive player.

As Snaqs has already said, under both NCAA and NFHS rulesets you cannot call a technical foul for contact occurring during a live ball. The rules simply do not allow it. It has to be a personal foul of some kind, as determined by the judgment of the calling official.

And also per NCAA and NFHS rules, it is not a technical foul for a defender to place their hand(s) in front of a shooter's face to distract the shooter or to block the shooter's vision.

It's never a T, under any rule set that I know of. With the same reasoning, also reaching in front of a shooter and hitting their forearm just to prevent the shoot should be ruled unsportsmanlike (or intentional for our NF's esteemed colleagues :)), even if there is no excessive contact.

Don't try and look into the head of the players: this is why FIBA changed the foul kind's name into "unsportsmanlike"; the same criterion is used in Fed, I believe: judge the contact and its effects, according to the rules; don't judge the player's intention, which you cannot.

If, in your opinion, that contact may lead to rough play afterwards (which it does in most cases), call a foul, otherwise rule it as incidental. Note that your opinion is completely independent of the player's intention. But never warn a player for this: either it's a foul or it isn't.

Ciao

Which rule allows an exception for 10-3-6d?

Obstructing the vision is bad, distracting the shooter is allowed. Depends on just how close the defender gets his hand to the shooter's eyes.

Either Jurassic misspoke or I misunderstood him, too.