For your sake I wish there was.
 

Chuck,
Maybe that action is not very wide spread.
But I think that if you deem the act to be unsporting, then you should call it unsporting in your games.
The rules allow us lots of room to make such judgments.

Go for it. What's the worst that could happen, that they stop the yelling and the coach has to sit?
mick

I think that CB play 10.3.8SitA gives you an idea about their thinking.

OK,and legal,to try and divert a player's attention.
Not OK(and unsporting) to obstruct their vision.

..uh..safety? Is the other situation unsafe?

JR,
After reading both the rulesbook and the casebook, I'm still unclear if this thinking also applies to a player with the ball.

Possibly, although that wouldn't have been my first thought. I was merely commenting that yelling fit the description that was given for waving of the hands. If "safety" is added as the real reason for the rule, then I'd have to concede that yelling is probably not a safety issue. It still bugs me tho. :)

Chuck

After reading this thread, I see potential for a valuable supplement to all rule books.

"THINGS THAT DO AND DON'T BOTHER MICK!"


:)

Nevada,I think that it must.Rule 10-3-8d specifically refers to it applying only to an "opponent not in control of the ball". The casebook question asks if it is an unsporting act to do it to a player with the ball.The answer is "no",followed by the explanation.

I don't think that they would ever use the language that they did if there was a situation where they wanted a T called for a defender waving their hands in the face of someone who had the ball.

Chuck-

Here's my theory -- and I'm guessimg -- on why this rule was put in. Imagine defending the post from behind by pputting hand in front of the eyes. This would be a rather effective strategy, if legal, as the whole point of posting up is to set up in a position and NOT move away from the defender. It would also lead to a lot of pushing and aggravation that has nothing to with the game. My guess is that is why the rule came into effect, as it is difficult to effectively put a hand to block the vision of a non-ballhandler outside of the post.

JR and others,
I am pressing this a bit because of a situation that I had last year.

Here's the play: The offensive player stops her dribble at the free throw line. She turns her back to the defender and is looking to pass to a teammate. The defender is now standing behind the offensive player, who is holding the ball. The defender reaches around the offensive player's head with both arms in a bear hug motion and covers the eyes of the offensive player by overlapping her hands maybe an inch in front of her face. No contact is made at all, and no attempt is made to play the ball.
Is this legal or is it a T?

Nevadaref,
If offense pivots and gets hit by the hands or arms, you are ready to make that call.
This is not a rules problem; it's a coaching problem.
mick

Agree with mick.There's gonna be a touch (personal)foul called in a hurry on this one.I guess you could call a T under the "includes,but not limited to" part of the definition if you really wanted to call it an "unsporting act",but the described act is not one of the examples listed in the rulebook.If the hands are that close to the face,there pretty well has to be some slight contact somewhere that you can quickly call a personal on.That should get the idea across(along with a few well chosen words,maybe).

Push or hand cneck?

Hand check is (generally) only used for a dribbler.

Push (if offense is displaced) or hold (if offense is prevented from moving -- more likely in this instance, imho).

Probably "hold" or "illegal use of hands".