This “Coca-cola” is a Pepsi

In a group of nine amateur chess players consulted (at Chesstempo), eight stated that the tactical theme of the challenge below is Impinning and only one of them stated that it is Distraction. One thing is one thing, another thing is another thing. I vote for Distraction. What about you folks? If possible, justify your answer (Please, choose only one alternative, not both).

My vote is for unpinning. My reason is that the definition of distraction I read is that it forces a piece to move from a key square. However, the square is not the target of the tactic in this puzzle. The target is the knight so it is unpinning. More than happy to be wrong.

Of course Rg3+ is prevented. Can I say both or are you going to make me pick only one?

Thanks for contributing! Please, choose only one alternative, not both

ok. I'm going for the unpin.

BTW is there an appropriately rated adjucator, whose authority is beyond reproach, standing by to give us the Truth of the matter. Or will we all be left hanging?

No, no, this is just a game, a kind of healthy debate based on logical arguments, just for fun and learning nothing more. There is no judge of the truth.

I like "counterpunch." 

Remove the indirect defender

I'd say that this is distraction, since the definition of unpinning is different. 

WHAT does Coke And Pepsi got to with anything? . . .

I like counterpunch :D . Can I change my vote.

I wondered the same. I dislike them both, far too much HFCS. Apparently it’s “six of one and half-dozen of the other.” Shoot I’m so unlearned about chess that I would have taken the a3 pawn. Is there any hope for players like me? I’d throw an unpin vote in the hat. 

phosphoric acid is not good for bones.

Removal of the guard!

oh yeah. Very clever. I never thought of a defensive pin in that way before.

Can I change my vote to removal of the guard?

Hello

Unpinning.  On g3, the rook is not directly defending the knight, but it is pinning the pawn.

but the rook is indirectly defending the knight by pinning the pawn. The reason I like removing the defender is it nicely deals with the dichotomy and introduces a 3rd choice that wasnt immediately apparent but appears entirely reasonable. That's chess.