The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 03:16pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
I Only Have Eyes For You ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
Which rule allows an exception for 10-3-6d?
2004-05 NFHS Point of Emphasis: Face guarding. A new rule change that calls for a technical foul for face guarding regardless of whether or not the offended player has the ball calls attention to the problem. The NFHS first defined face guarding as illegal in 1913. The rules have essentially been unchanged and have received varying degrees of emphasis through the century. Face guarding is defined in rule 10-3-7d as purposely obstructing an opponent's vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his or her eyes. The penalty is a technical foul. Face guarding could occur with a single hand and a player's hand(s) do not have to be waving; the hand(s) could be stationary but still restrict the opponent's vision. The committee does not intend for 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 in transition.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon May 31, 2010 at 03:19pm.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 03:51pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Thanks, Billy. Saved me digging it up.

Face guarding

Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Mon May 31, 2010 at 04:02pm.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 03:58pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
I'm not aware of any rules citation that will back that statement up, Snaqs. Unless the defender is doing something to the shooter that could be construed as unsportsmanlike, like feinting jabbing stiffened fingers at the shooter's eyes, I was under the impression that any distance short of actual contact was allowed.

An open hand in the face of the shooter is permissible at any distance short of contact by rule afaik.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 04:11pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
I'm not aware of any rules citation that will back that statement up, Snaqs. Unless the defender is doing something to the shooter that could be construed as unsportsmanlike, like feinting jabbing stiffened fingers at the shooter's eyes, I was under the impression that any distance short of actual contact was allowed.

An open hand in the face of the shooter is permissible at any distance short of contact by rule afaik.
10-3-6d was recently changed to include the player with the ball.

10.3.6A (which, incidentally, references 10-3-6c) notes, "holding or waving hands near the eye for the ostensible purpose of obstructing an opponent's vision is unsporting."

If it's part of challenging the shooter, fine. If he's trying to obstruct the shooter's vision, it's not fine. To me, we have to judge their intent, and 99.9999999992% of the time it's legal. But the fact is, if they do it with the intent of obstructing the shooter's vision, it's not legal.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 04:34pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
10-3-6d was recently changed to include the player with the ball.

10.3.6A (which, incidentally, references 10-3-6c) notes, "holding or waving hands near the eye for the ostensible purpose of obstructing an opponent's vision is unsporting."

If it's part of challenging the shooter, fine. If he's trying to obstruct the shooter's vision, it's not fine. To me, we have to judge their intent, and 99.9999999992% of the time it's legal. But the fact is, if they do it with the intent of obstructing the shooter's vision, it's not legal.
Disagree. Intent is NOT part of the rule and doesn't play any part in the adjudication. A defender putting a hand in the face of a shooter was and is legal. It has never been illegal. The POE cited above couldn't be plainer in that respect.

See BillyMac's cite and previous thread on face guarding. There's several older threads on the same topic also.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 04:47pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
Disagree. Intent is NOT part of the rule and doesn't play any part in the adjudication. A defender putting a hand in the face of a shooter was and is legal. It has never been illegal. The POE cited above couldn't be plainer in that respect.

See BillyMac's cite and previous thread on face guarding. There's several older threads on the same topic also.
Okay, so let me quote BillyMac's posted POE, "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."

Nothing in the the rule excludes the shooter from protection here, and there's nothing in the POE that leads me to believe the shooter is somehow fair game for this practice.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 05:32pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Okay, so let me quote BillyMac's posted POE, "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."

Nothing in the the rule excludes the shooter from protection here, and there's nothing in the POE that leads me to believe the shooter is somehow fair game for this practice.
Well, if you think the following from that POE is nothing it sureasheck ain't worth discussing it any further with you....

"The committee does not intend for 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 BEHAVIOR."

I don't know what could be clearer...but that's just me.

I'd recommend that anybody reading this talk to a competent and recognized rules interpreter before calling a "T" on a defender putting an open hand in a shooter's face.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 06:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Not where I was previously
Posts: 1,060
For my own edification, could I ask for some clarification:

Player A1 is going up for a jump shot...
1. B1 places their hand directly in the face of the shooter
2. B1 attempts to block the shot and in the course of that attempt their hand
ends up directly in front of the shooters face
3. Prior to the shot attempt, A1 is in "triple threat", B1 closes out with a hand in A1 face and keeps it there as A1 attempts their shot.

All legal? I am actually seeing this type of 'defensive' move more and would like to make sure I am on top of the correct rulings and schools of thought.
IMO: (which is chiseled in yogart)
1. Non basketball play. The shooter goes from a clear field of vision to that vision being purposefully obstructed in a non basketball way.
2. Clearly a basketball play
3. Could go either way. Depends on what the 'divined' intent of the defender is. Did the hand intentionally go to A1's face? Is B1 just staying on their feet defensively and their hand and the shooters face end up at the exact same height off the floor.
These are the plays I have seen this spring and any of the afore mentioned thoughts are more than open to change.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 07:54pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Has anyone ever seen anyone call a "T" on a defender for putting a hand in a shooter's face in an NCAA D1 game? Ever? In a high school varsity game? In any game?

Has anyone ever heard of that particular call having been made in an NCAA D1 game? State final? Whatever?

I haven't.

Would you make that call in a college camp this summer?
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 08:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NB/PEI, Canada
Posts: 788
I was at a tournament last summer the game my first game was part of a back to back for a local club team u16. Coach was hot and looking for clarification during warmup. In the previous game the had lost by 6 his kids had been called for 7 unsportsmanlike and 1 tech.

3 - For putting and hand up and/ yelling shot at the shooter.
2 - For full front denying players with their back to the ball that the official interpreted as face guarding.
2- For blocking calls made on defenders before the ball was inbounded.

(Tech was on coach for complaining about the unsportsmanlikes.)

COach wanted to know why his kids weren't allowed to play defense. They reality was the first game officials probably called some by the book stuff that was misinterpreted (officials from all over no just guys i knew).

Though in the same tournament 2 u19 teams combined for 15 unsportsmanlikes most of those were legitimate excessive contact or breaking up the fast break.
__________________
Coach: Hey ref I'll make sure you can get out of here right after the game!

Me: Thanks, but why the big rush.

Coach: Oh I thought you must have a big date . . .we're not the only ones your planning on F$%&ing tonite are we!
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 08:42pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
Has anyone ever seen anyone call a "T" on a defender for putting a hand in a shooter's face in an NCAA D1 game? Ever? In a high school varsity game? In any game?

Has anyone ever heard of that particular call having been made in an NCAA D1 game? State final? Whatever?

I haven't.

Would you make that call in a college camp this summer?
Have you ever seen a T called for this anywhere on the court in anything above a high school JV game?
This whole discussion is hypothetical. The only time I've ever even seen a defender do it to a player without the ball was in a 6th grade girls YMCA game.

JR, the rule says nothing about a shooter, but if you say the POE exempts the shooter from the protection this rule provides, so be it. I'm trying to make sure I understand this correctly, because it seems as if you're saying the POE adds a caveat to the rule.

Situations:
1. A1 with the ball at the top of the key, has used his dribble and is now holding the ball looking to pass. B1 reaches up and puts his hands over A1's eyes, the obvious purpose of the move is to obstruct the vision of A1 rather than actually play defense.

2. Same situation as #1, but A1 decides to shoot just as B1's hands get near his A1's eyes. Again, B1 isn't even attempting to play defense, he's just obstructing A1's vision.

Are you saying that the POE tells us that #2 is not a T because A1 is shooting? I think it says the defense can challenge the shooter just as always, but cannot stick their hand in the shooter's face for the sole purpose of obstructing his vision.

Granted, the bar on this is so high that it should probably never get called.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 31, 2010, 10:37pm
Back from the DL
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
I think it says the defense can challenge the shooter just as always, but cannot stick their hand in the shooter's face for the sole purpose of obstructing his vision.
That's exactly how I'm reading it.

When you guard the shooter with a hand up, often times, vision will be blocked. A hand in the face isn't necessarily a hand over the eyes. If the clear intent is to block vision -- an unsporting foul -- that's where the T comes in.

For fun, let's take it a step further. A1 has the ball. B2 is directly behind A1 and facing him. B2 reaches around A1's head and covers both eyes with both hands while making contact above the nose (almost like playing "guess who?"). Since contact was made on a live ball, can this only be a personal foul, or does the technical take precedence, due to the obvious intent?
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 01, 2010, 12:12am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
Since contact was made on a live ball, can this only be a personal foul, or does the technical take precedence, due to the obvious intent?
No If you did choose to make the call for obstruction of vision, it would be for the obstruction of vision, not for the contact, which would be considered incidental to the play.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove

Last edited by just another ref; Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:28am.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 01, 2010, 12:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
That's exactly how I'm reading it.

When you guard the shooter with a hand up, often times, vision will be blocked. A hand in the face isn't necessarily a hand over the eyes. If the clear intent is to block vision -- an unsporting foul -- that's where the T comes in.
Agree.

They didn't change the rule (and it was NOT an editorial clarification) so for nothing.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 01, 2010, 03:55am
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
As far as I know, NFHS, NCAA, and NBA all have rules against face guarding in certain situations. In every venture of basketball I have watched (and especially since I started officiating), I have never, ever seen this considered this face guarding or had an evaluator say anything to the fact.

NCAA Men's wording:

Section 6. (Men) CLASS B TECHNICAL INFRACTIONS
Art. 1. A technical foul shall be assessed to a player or a substitute for the
following infractions:

a. Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing
hand(s) near his eyes.

NCAA women's is vary similar. I believe the NFHS wording as been posted already (at least the philosophy and how the rule is to be interpreted).

The NBA wording is a lot more specific:

m. Eye guarding (placing a hand in front of the opponent’s eyes when guarding from the rear) a player who does not have possession of the ball is illegal and an unsportsmanlike technical shall be assessed.

For as long as I was playing basketball, it's been taught that it's good defense to place a hand in the shooter's face to challenge the shot. I feel that we have (or might already), see this happen more cause Shane Battier, a SG/SF who is an excellent defender has use this tactic with varying success when guarding Kobe Bryant. In fact, I know the TV announcers have made it a point to say how instead of trying to block the shot, Battier would but a hand up in the face to challenge the shot. There would never be contact though would be times where it would be close. No one every made a fuss about it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1