Leg Tap
 

Are you calling this "driveby leg tap" if A) You had not previously warned or B) You had warned this player

Leg Tap on Yahoo! Video

To me, there is no way to see the play from the angle we are presented. It certainly didn't look like much the official would easily have the best angle on the play.

The ONLY way that we would ever know for sure what happened on any play like this would be to ask the calling official.

Warning a player not to foul???? Huh??? :confused:

Obvious by the way that he reports the foul he is motivated in calling it. Whether there has been a warning is irrelevant--he has seen it before, maybe even in this game, and is putting a stop to it.

Like the little tummy poke that has been popular in the past--it has absolutely nothing to do with the game. The warning I give is to the captain. I tell him to cut it out because if I call it, it will be intentional.

Yeah

No.

I don't warn kids not to foul. I don't work with anyone that I have heard warn someone not to foul. If he fouls, call it. If it's not a foul, don't call it.

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.

OK then, I have you and everyone that has ever worked with you as Yes on A & B.

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.

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.

M.E.D.: Mental Enhancing Drugs ???
 

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

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

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.

I Only Have Eyes For You ...
 

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.

Thanks, Billy. Saved me digging it up.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...-guarding.html

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.

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.

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. <font color = red>CHALLENGING A SHOOTER WITH A 'HAND IN THE FACE'</font> or fronting a post player with a hand in the air to prevent a post pass <font color = red>ARE EXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR</font>."

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.

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?:confused: 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.

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? :)

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.

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.

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?

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.

Agree.

They didn't change the rule (and it was NOT an editorial clarification) so for nothing.

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.

I saw this called at the state tournament this year and twice in the regular season HS (both girls games.) On the collegiate level, I know an official had a discrete discussion with a coach and player about the practice and the advisability of discontinuing it.
I can't recall seeing it more than a few times in the past couple of years, but for some reason I am seeing more of it this spring. I have been handling by simply saying to the coach or player "Not for nothing but did you know if a player puts their hands in the face of an opponent for the sole purpose of blocking their vision is a "T"?" That has usually taken care of it. I think this is different than the leg tap play b/c there is no contact and I think you can get away with warning and avoid adding what some may think as crap into the game. Again, just my semi solid opinion!:D