Leg Tap

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

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.

[MathReferee]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by AustinRef

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.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Thanks, Billy. Saved me digging it up.

Face guarding

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

- 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.

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