Am I Overthinking?
 

A1 shoots a legitimate jump shot from within the free throw circle. B1 blocks the shot, but jumps towards A1 while doing so. After A1 lands (very close to still being in the air). B1 contacts A1, displacing her.

I rule that the foul is after the act of shooting, since A1 had landed before B1 contacted her. The ball was still in the air, but had no chance of going in the basket. For conversation's sake, let's say A1 was still in the air when contact occured. Would the correct ruling be to give A1 two free throws even though it was obvious that the shot was not going to go in?

Just wondering if I'm overthinking the play.

Why would the shot having a chance to go in affect whether free throws are awarded?

Not so much overthinking as it is applying two different aspects of officiating into one question. Break it down.

1) Whether the shot has a chance to go in or not shouldn't be the reason you do or don't give two shots here.

2) Blocking a shot and then creating contacting is vastly different than just contact. Or for that matter, contact and then a block.

Yes. You are. It happens. The "no chance of going in" stuff applies to end of quarter situations or if a whistle is blown and a shot is in the air etc. If a shot is taken, horn sounds, ball clearly missed, your shooter lands and then is bumped the contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant. You are probably thinking too much about the Spurs play in the other thread. That second rebounding foul should be penalized in high school because, while it occurred after the horn, the ball was still "live." It had a chance to go in. Had it clearly had no chance of going in before the second foul the ball would have been dead and contact ignored. (I wouldn't call it intentional) thx

by rule, if A1 has landed, then the act of shooting was over. No shots (unless team A is in the bonus).

in practice, most will still give two shots if it's a close as you seem to indicate.

If in doubt, give 'em free throws.

It doesn't.

But looking at it from a rules logic standpoint, I can understand how it may not seem to make sense. In other words, shot is released entirely cleanly, and after that the airborne shooter is fouled. A foul in the act of shooting/tapping ostensibly affects said shot/tap. So the fact that an airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting is counterintuitive.

But this caveat is written into the rules for a reason, and that is to protect the airborne shooter, sort of like protecting a defenseless receiver in football. The rule discourages contact on defenseless shooters by penalizing it just as though the contact were on the shot/tap itself.