Leg Tap

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[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