Tickle the Shooter's Belly/Torso During a Try for A Goal

[Toren]

Originally Posted by CountTheBasket

There is no such thing as marginal contact on a jump shooter--if he hits him, I call it.

This

+1

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

This

+1

You call any and all contact on a jump shooter?

Originally Posted by Adam

You call any and all contact on a jump shooter?

While shooting? Yeah. After the release before he has returned to the floor? No, I consider incidental/marginal/illegal contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

While shooting? Yeah. After the release before he has returned to the floor? No, I consider incidental/marginal/illegal contact.

Interesting. Is this for all jump shooters everywhere? Just the ones shooting from the arc? Anyone outside the lane?

I'll agree that the threshold for advantage moves a little on a jump shooter from a greater distance, but contact on someone who is shooting is still subject to the incidental contact rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

You call any and all contact on a jump shooter?

Originally Posted by Adam

Interesting. Is this for all jump shooters everywhere? Just the ones shooting from the arc? Anyone outside the lane?

I'll agree that the threshold for advantage moves a little on a jump shooter from a greater distance, but contact on someone who is shooting is still subject to the incidental contact rule.

100% of the time, no. But, the threshold moves more than just a little bit for jump shooters, it moves a lot for me.

Originally Posted by Adam

Interesting. Is this for all jump shooters everywhere? Just the ones shooting from the arc? Anyone outside the lane?

I'll agree that the threshold for advantage moves a little on a jump shooter from a greater distance, but contact on someone who is shooting is still subject to the incidental contact rule.

When it is contact that is clearly not legal defense (which poking someone in the stomach is clearly not), yes. I'm with BNR on this one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

When it is contact that is clearly not legal defense (which poking someone in the stomach is clearly not), yes. I'm with BNR on this one.

I agree, and if that's what was meant, then there's nothing separating us. I was, however, taking exception to the statement that all contact against a jump shooter is a foul all the time.

[CountTheBasket]

Originally Posted by Adam

I agree, and if that's what was meant, then there's nothing separating us. I was, however, taking exception to the statement that all contact against a jump shooter is a foul all the time.

"There is no such thing as marginal contact on a jump shooter" is the way I had it presented to me by someone I really respect, and that phrase/philosophy has stuck with me. You're right, the rulebook says incidental so if we were arguing in a court of law you win--but I think everyone understood what it meant.

I will stand by the statement though, if someone in the act of shooting gets hit, I'm calling a foul. If you're going to reply with well any and all contact includes a defenders right thumb grazing the shorts on the left leg of the shooter--well whether or not I call that depends on if the out of bounds line around the court is red, blue or green.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Adam

You call any and all contact on a jump shooter?

If the defender is vertical, then they are legal and the contact is not their fault.

But in the case described in the OP, that's a foul.

[CountTheBasket]

Originally Posted by Toren

If the defender is vertical, then they are legal and the contact is not their fault.

But in the case described in the OP, that's a foul.

Great point. I was envisioning the scenario as relating to the defender coming towards the shooter as they do when they do the "poke."