If a player attempts to block an opponent's shot by jumping in front of the opponent while he/she is shooting, is a foul committed by the player if the opponent's foot contacts the player during the shot? Would the answer be different if the player actually blocked the shot in the process?
Yes, it's a foul. Law 12: • kicks or attempts to kick an opponent • jumps at an opponent And no, he/she still fouled the player, IMHO, in a dangerous manner, and may warrant a caution depending upon the circumstances.
Without contradicting Andy, I would add that the good old "trifling and doubtful" clause could be considered. The description that the "foot contacts the opponent" isn't really enough to go on. If the referees feels that the contact (or near contact, as "jumping at" is the actual foul) was committed with careless, reckless, or excessive force, then a foul should be called. OTOH, if the referee feels that the contact and/or the jump was trifling, he may determine that the action was not a callable foul. Another alternative, if the referee felt the action caused the opponent to "duck and cover", might be PIADM. Generally, if there's contact, it's not PIADM, but if the contact is light/trifling, then PIADM for an IFK might be acceptable? (Question mark on this to allow some more seasoned folks to step in.)
Absolutely agree, but.... If a players jumps to attempt to play a ball, it's definitely not being careful, ergo it is careless by defintion and for me, 99% of the time this is a foul. Maybe, and certainly situation dependant; score, position on field, previous conduct/incidents, time in match, skill of players, etc. You'd have to be there...
Two common examples: First, the header. Player A is positioned under the ball, jumping vertically. Player B is running, jumping forward. He is (or may be) jumping at player A. Second, the block. Player A is winding up to kick the ball. Player B is approaching the ball and jumps to block the shot. He is (or may be) jumping at player B. Regardless of whether the ball is contacted by player B in either of these situations, the foul of jumping (at) will be considered by the referee. Note that in either of these situations, if player B were not jumping, but had his feet on the ground, then the play *might* be a legal charge. However, a legal charge must have a foot on the ground. When the feet leave the ground, a potentially legal challenge becomes a potential foul for jumping. Last sentence bolded because that's the key to the jumping (at) foul, at least from a basic perspective.