Leg Tap

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me ask, then, do you deal with this play at all? Shooter goes up, defender does the drive by leg tap or stomach tap. There's no real advantage or effect on the shot, but it's hard to consider it "incidental" to playing the ball so I wonder if the contact is truly incidental.

If it's not incidental, call a foul. You don't call a foul if the contact causes no advantage (or disadvantage) and it is incidental. Not or.

In this particular case, the "warning" would be precisely calling a foul (assuming, of course, that the contact is a real one and not just a quick dusting).

Ciao

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

If it's not incidental, call a foul. You don't call a foul if the contact causes no advantage (or disadvantage) and it is incidental. Not or.

In this particular case, the "warning" would be precisely calling a foul (assuming, of course, that the contact is a real one and not just a quick dusting).

Ciao

Rule 4-27-3 seems to contradict my previous post, to be honest.
"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

Frankly, eg, this also contradicts your post. By this rule, contact which does not create an advantage or disadvantage is, by definition, incidental. So, in the case of the shooter getting his leg tapped, it seems as if it's by rule incidental and therefore not a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Rule 4-27-3 seems to contradict my previous post, to be honest.
"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

Frankly, eg, this also contradicts your post. By this rule, contact which does not create an advantage or disadvantage is, by definition, incidental. So, in the case of the shooter getting his leg tapped, it seems as if it's by rule incidental and therefore not a foul.

The advantage need not be physical, it could be mental. It could have the effect of disturbing the shooter's focus on subsequent shots when he/she anticipates getting poked in the leg/gut.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The advantage need not be physical, it could be mental. It could have the effect of disturbing the shooter's focus on subsequent shots when he/she anticipates getting poked in the leg/gut.

Except that by rule, it doesn't say "advantage/disadvantage," it talks about normal offensive and defensive movements. I don't see what rule basis there is for extending that to mental advantage.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Mental advantage.

Please pack some up, and ship some out to Mark Padgett as soon as possible.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Except that by rule, it doesn't say "advantage/disadvantage," it talks about normal offensive and defensive movements. I don't see what rule basis there is for extending that to mental advantage.

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."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Judtech]

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.

[Pantherdreams]

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

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Rule 4-27-3 seems to contradict my previous post, to be honest.
"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

Frankly, eg, this also contradicts your post. By this rule, contact which does not create an advantage or disadvantage is, by definition, incidental. So, in the case of the shooter getting his leg tapped, it seems as if it's by rule incidental and therefore not a foul.

I use a different rule set, as you probably know (FIBA):

47.3 When deciding on a personal contact or violation, the officials shall, in each instance, have regard to and weigh the following fundamental principles:
• ...
• Consistency in the application of the concept of 'advantage/disadvantage', whereby the officials should not seek to interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily in order to penalise personal contact that is incidental and which does not give the player responsible an advantage nor place his opponent at a disadvantage.
• ...

Moreover, as Camron Rust points out, you should also consider other factors: intimidation, for example. I didn't say that a leg tap or a light poke in the ribs is necessarily a foul; but that the appropriate warning, if you think this behavior needs one, is to call a foul.

I believe this applies also to Fed's view of the game.

Ciao