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

I see this a lot and have been calling a "shooting foul".
Players get the point and eventually stop doing it.
Player told me "hey ref I did not hit that shooter".
I replied "You touched his chest/tummy area when he tried for a shot, I just want to see you play defense the normal way--hands extended up to contest it".
He never did it again.
Are you guys calling this a foul or are you letting defenders "slide" on this type of situation?
My partner started calling it when he saw me call it, we spoke during pre-game about these situations and confirmed that we are to be consistent.

I try to talk to defenders first when I see them doing it. In a game where the temperature is rising this could be a really annoying thing that sparks a shoving match so it's best to take care of it early. I like your method -- call it early and consistently and the players will quickly knock it off.

If I feel like its going to escalate or is continuous and may lead to rough play or a reaction (as others have mentioned) I may blow it until it stops. As a one off or if nobody seems to be impacted or reacting I'll tend to let it go. Most kids are used to having to finished through some contact anyway at higher levels so a tummy touch isn't a big deal.

I feel likes its similar to players who stick their arm in on d and the offense flys by. If the offense isn't effected and there are not reactionary smacks or wacks that start to develop then let the blow by happen. IN this case let the shot or layup go down and play on.

At no time is this a foul not an intentional personal foul.

The first time I see it I will do one of two things: I will either tell the defender to knock it off if the contact did not change the play or I will call a foul in the act of shooting.

If I did not call a foul the first time I see it, the second time I see it, it will at least be a foul in the act of shooting.

The third and thereafter it will be an intentional personal foul each and every time.

When I choose to take the "warning" approach the first time I see it, I let the defender know in no uncertain terms that the contact, by definition, is an intentional personal foul, and that does make an impression on most players.

The amazing thing is that this foul is committed by male players and not female players. I cannot remember the last time I had to talk to a female player about this type of contact.

MTD, Sr.

*If there are any female readers/participants on this forum, I do NOT mean to sound "sexist" when I make this comment: but in general I have observed that the female players are more fundamentally-sound and less concerned with concocting rule-bending behaviors/ploys to create offensive and/or defensive advantages. I've observed that they really 'talk" and communcate on defense telling their team-mates when screens are coming, they slide their feet on defense better, maintain defensive stance better, and the such. However, I have noticed that when they shoot jumpshots, many female shooters tend to take that little 'hop' step before they attempt a shot--ostensibly to "gather" themselves before the shot. Hmmmm, whether by definition this is a "travel" violation or not, it is never called by officials--male nor female officials in both nfhs, collegiate, and wnba levels as I have observed.

Q. Why is the defender doing this? A. because s/he thinks it will affect the shot (and s/he's right -- just try to shoot with a little jab in the stomach -- even if it doesn't affect that shot, it will affect the form on the next).

Q. Is this legal defensive positioning or incidental contact? A. No.

So -- it's illegal contact that gives an advantage. Sure sounds like the definition of "foul" to me.

Yes, I call it. It's usually more of a poke in the torso in these parts.

Annoying ???
 

They don't have the time to do it. Their spending the entire game yelling, "Ball. Ball. Ball.".

"At no time" except the first two times. Right?

I was wondering if he made a syntax error in that post.

Come observe here. It's a travel. We're trained to call it as such.

Now you both have me :confused: on what I wrote. :p But it is too early in the morning for me to rewrite my post. Later this morning.

MTD, Sr.

Before Your Early Afternoon Nap ???
 

After your late morning nap?

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

Just please don't refer to it as the "tummy" again, its weird. And if its any type of jab its a foul. If it is just fingertips or very light, then nothing.

*Exactly, I concur...that is why I told that player to "just play defense the normal way, the way your coach taught you--hands extended up and time your jump to block or contest that shot".

*Authors of these posts are free to use any terminology they choose, be it as "tummy", "abdomen", "torso", or any other term--be it of a strictly anatomical distinction (i.e., abdomen/torso) or colloquial origin (i.e., tummy, belly). I think we all know what each other means--just sayin...:cool:

*We are not sure what you mean by saying "any type of jab is foul, but just a light finger tip, then nothing"--appears glaringly contradictory.

Sometime between my post-breakfast nap and my pre-lunch nap. Being a retired structural engineer is a demanding job. :p

MTD, Sr.

Exactly. They're doing it for no other reason than to affect the shooter - illegally - on that shot and future attempts.

What is this "marginal contact"? I can't find it.

Contact on a shooter may be incidental, or it may be a foul. And yes, there are plenty of cases where you'll have incidental contact on a jump shooter: even if a jab to the stomach isn't one of those cases.

You say all this?

I'm with you on this. I heard a D1 supervisor use this in talk during a camp. Some may see it as picking nits but I think it's important.

I know what's generally meant: contact which may or may not be a foul depending on circumstances. I get that. The problem is, many confuse the term and start using it where "incidental" is more appropriate and defined.

This

+1

You call any and all contact on a jump shooter?

If you never played high level playground basketball this is done REGULARLY there... that's where it comes from.

Now being a very good jump shooter it does affect a jump shot just by a matter of inches.... believe me

You have to call this at the high school level.....
On the concrete....you play through it

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.

If you want to work for a D1 (or even a D2 or D3) supervisor, it is something you need to know, whether it is in the book or not.

But marginal contact doesn't have anything to do with this particular situation.

They get one "I see what your trying to do", and then anything subsequent gets a whistle. I am not going with an IF though, no more than I would if they were jabbing at the shooter's elbow, arm, or wrist.

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

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.

The majority understood the message...
 

"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.

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."

Sorry, I generally cringe at absolutes. :)

No, I'm not going to discuss the thumb graze. We let a lot of contact go in the post, even on a jump shooter, when it has no affect on the shooter or the shot.

I'm thinking more of a scenario where a defender, approaching a jump shooter, doesn't quite get his hand high enough and ends up getting it on the chest (flat hand, not pointed fingers) as the shooter releases but there is zero impact.

I'm with BNR, my threshold moves a lot as we move out towards the 3 pt arc, but it's not automatic. I've heard coaches try telling me "contact with a shooter is automatically a foul", which is just flat out wrong, but it's seemingly what is meant by the statement "There's no such thing as marginal contact on a jump shooter."

Now, if I end up working for someone who wants the game called that way, I'll adjust. I'm not ready to retire.

All you have to do is call this one time, this crap will stop. Players know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Peace

That was the other thing I was going to say, call it once and you won't have to worry about it anymore.