CAn you land but not be finished landing?
 

As I adjust to life in two different conferences and assignors. I'm doing my best to keep improving myself while keeping everyone happy.

In my new conference they are really tight on illegal contact on the "boxing out" of shooters. That's pretty easy. A) Watch for displacement or roughness and 2) make sure you can tell if they were done shooting or not.

Its 2 that is causing me a sticky wicket . . .

Player is in the act of shooting until they land if they are airborne. UNtil they release the ball if they stay grounded I've got a number of couple of partners who've indicated to me that they either:

*Give the shooter time to land and get balanced again before they consider the act of shooting done.

*In case case of a set shooter (generally girls ball) give her the same time and opportunity to recover/protect herself as they would as if she had jumped?

In a nutshell: player has released the shot and has returned to the floor but the foul called on the box out/rebounding action involving the shooter is still sometimes being treated as a shooting foul.

Doesn't happen often but enough in games I am working that I am second guessing myself and having trouble explaining the rule/what I am seeing to others. Keep in mind most of this is because we are calling a lot of rebounding fouls anyway.

In my mind once you are back on the floor or have released the ball and never left the floor you are not longer a shooter. There appears to be a magical grey area here or is it just the guys in my new part of Rome that are doing there own thing?

DO you guys consider touching the floor landed? Or is that too literal should a be looking for a completed landing, balanced and ready to play.

Once they land…they have landed. no longer airborne shooter. If you are unsure you can go with shooting foul but if you know clearly they landed then they get ball OOB or bonus etc.

I don't require balanced and completed landing etc. I suppose you have to do what your powers that be require. I wouldn't require it.

The rule.

The practice.

IOW, benefit of the doubt to "she was shooting." Don't go looking for the exact milisecond (or even second) when the rule applies.

Yes, The ones after the landing are usually pretty obvious. wouldn't split hairs on it just to prove we know rule. if in doubt shoot the FTs.

It's like how some people error on the side of charging rather than blocking. Or should I say "give the benefit of the doubt"? Either way, that's kind of how I officiate this situation.

There have been a couple times this season I called non-shooting fouls committed against the former shooter, but more often than not I've called them shooting fouls. I kind of see this like protecting the shooter.

I agree with Bryanv21: in that it is similar to which side you would err on. In girls games where the players seem to put so much effort and attention into vigorously boxing out---you will observe that once the airborne shooter A1 has returned to the floor and still holding follow-thru form she is then boxed out (as my old coach used to shout at me when I played hoop many years ago: "stick yer butt in his gut boy!". I confess that I do err towards issuing the shooting foul in these cases.
Mr. Pantherdreem, it seems to me as though your league managers want you to call the shooting foul despite the "shades of gray" inherent to this sitch.

I get what they're saying, but I'd rather advise officials not to split hairs on this than try picking different hairs to split.