National Semi Final question ...

[4ontheT]

Decided to watch the Notre Dame game again . In the first half ....Moriah is guarding Skyler and gets called for a foul for putting her hand very close to her face ....blocking her vision ....so to speak . There was no contact involved ... so where did the foul come in ? Sounds like good defense to me ....unless there's a rule that I wasn't aware of that says you can't block the opponent's vision .

 

[ju6381]

Decided to watch the Notre Dame game again . In the first half ....Moriah is guarding Skyler and gets called for a foul for putting her hand very close to her face ....blocking her vision ....so to speak . There was no contact involved ... so where did the foul come in ? Sounds like good defense to me ....unless there's a rule that I wasn't aware of that says you can't block the opponent's vision .

Yes, there is a rule about putting your hand too close to someone's face, imo it is a good rule and one that prevents injury.

 

[DaddyChoc]

she did make contact

 

[Zorro]

Speaking of the ND game, who in the name of common sense chose those unis and what were they thinking? The shade of green on the shirts and warmups was unfortunate, the yellow-green shading made them even worse, the shorts looked like the bottoms of mebbe shortie pajamas, or decorative bloomers. Sheesh!! (Mrs. z feels the same way, only more so.)

 

[UcMiami]

Speaking of the ND game, who in the name of common sense chose those unis and what were they thinking? The shade of green on the shirts and warmups was unfortunate, the yellow-green shading made them even worse, the shorts looked like the bottoms of mebbe shortie pajamas, or decorative bloomers. Sheesh!! (Mrs. z feels the same way, only more so.)

Totally agree! Sort of like our old gray uniforms - definitely deserved to lose for wearing that crap!
There is no penalty for non contact blocking of vision, but not all refs are perfect!

 

[Icebear]

Face guarding or eye guarding is not illegal in the NBA unless contact is made.

In college ball the rule is as follows, note that the result is a technical foul.

"College
The National Collegiate Athletics Association defines face guarding as, "Purposely obstructing an opponent's vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his or her eyes" in Rule 10, Section 6, Article 1 in the official rules, which cover both men's and women's basketball. The offender is penalized with a technical foul resulting in a free throw for the opposing team."

The rule dates back to 1913.



"10-3-6 Player Technical

A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes acts...such as:

d. Purposely obstructing an opponents vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his/her eyes."


Link to an officials discussion: http://forum.officiating.com/basketball/56940-face-guarding.html

 

[UcMiami]

Face guarding or eye guarding is not illegal in the pros unless contact is made.

In college ball the rule is as follows, note that the result is a technical foul.

"College
The National Collegiate Athletics Association defines face guarding as, "Purposely obstructing an opponent's vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his or her eyes" in Rule 10, Section 6, Article 1 in the official rules, which cover both men's and women's basketball. The offender is penalized with a technical foul resulting in a free throw for the opposing team."

The rule dates back to 1913.



"10-3-6 Player Technical

A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes acts...such as:

d. Purposely obstructing an opponents vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his/her eyes."

Wow - you learn something every day. Do not believe I have ever seen this called as a foul or a technical.

 

[Icebear]

Always something new to learn even when it is old. One of the great things about the Boneyard.

 

[Wally East]

Interesting about face-guarding. I'd always taken the term to mean guarding a player without paying attention to where the ball is.

 

[Phil]

Thanks for providing the rule, but no technical was called, was it? So did they call an ordinary foul for contact?

 

[Icebear]

I have to go back and look, Phil.

 

[Phil]

The bx score doesn't list any technical, which isn't conclusive proof, I think technicals are rare enough that they sometimes fill out "none" by habit.

 

[DaddyChoc]

a foul was called

 

[Icebear]

A foul was definitely called what I not sure of is whether it was a technical or not. Was the ball taken out of bounds or did Skylar shoot. Out of bounds would mean it was likely only called as a non-shooting foul. If, however, she shot then it was a technical foul. ND was not at 1-1 at that point to the best of my memory. It a non-shooting foul was called the officials blew the rule.

 

[doggydaddy]

Just watched it again. Jefferson barely brushed her face, if at all. The called that light contact because it was the face and Jefferson held her hand in front of Diggins face for a few seconds.

Certainly no technical. It was called a regular foul.

And thanks for prodding me to watch again. Such a fun game to watch.

 

[Icebear]

Thanks, DD. It was an out of bounds penalty wasn't it.

Calling it as a foul after reading officials discussions indicates there is no basis for calling it as a foul because simple contact with another person is not a foul. If it is face/eye guarding then a technical is the proper call.

 

[doggydaddy]

Thanks, DD. It was an out of bounds penalty wasn't it.

Calling it as a foul after reading officials discussions indicates there is no basis for calling it as a foul because simple contact with another person is not a foul. If it is face/eye guarding then a technical is the proper call.

No, not an out of bounds play. Diggins was dribbling up court under pressure from Jefferson. She lost her dribble and had to pull up. Jefferson closely guarded her and put her hands in front of Diggins eyes. Jefferson might have brushed her eye as Diggins appeared to flinch and the foul was called. No other contact was made.

 

[Phil]

So the odd thing is that if contact is made it is an ordinary foul, but if no contact if made, it could be a technical foul. Hmmm.

Edit, I'm probably over-simplifying this. I suppose if they were about to call face-guarding as a technical, and then saw contact, they wouldn't reconsider the technical, they could still call it. And in converse, if they thought the hand in the face wasn't blatant enough to call a technical, but then saw contact, they would whistle the ordinary foul.

 

[Icebear]

No, not an out of bounds play. Diggins was dribbling up court under pressure from Jefferson. She lost her dribble and had to pull up. Jefferson closely guarded her and put her hands in front of Diggins eyes. Jefferson might have brushed her eye as Diggins appeared to flinch and the foul was called. No other contact was made.

No, did it result IN an inbounds play. Sorry, for my mistatement I meant inbounds not out of bounds. I remember the play quite well since I rewatched all of the tournament regional and FF on last Friday. I just couldn't remember the outcome of the penalty.

 

[Icebear]

Technically, it should be called a technical either way. Incidental contact is not necessarily a penalty but face/eye guarding is, especially, when done from behind.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

It wasn't a shooting foul. In bounds play. She might have gotten away with it but Skylar turned her back on her and Mo's hand followed around, making it very apparent. Silly and potentially dangerous move.