I am stumped !!

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No.



It does. In the OP the player is not an airborne shooter as s/he has not released the ball.

I am confused. Why does someone have to release the ball to be considered shooting? There are lots of times where fouls prevent the release of a shot.

Imagine B1 taking out the legs of the dunker and the dunker lands holding the ball. Not going to award two shots for the shooting foul?

Or, B1 is in the air about to release a shot. From behind, A1 hits B1 in the back of the head. Then A2, in front with his hand on the ball, prevents the release of the shot. Not going to award two shots?

Check rule 4-41 article 2. "...A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball."

Now, obviously there was no foul in the OP however I would judge the player to be, in 99.9% cases, attempting to throw for goal.

Is there a specific case citation for this play that indicate otherwise and to treat it as traveling? If so, set me straight.