Foul after shooter returns to floor

[bob jenkins]

It meets the "English" definition of "in the act of shooting," even though it does NOT meet the rulebook definition.

[Camron Rust]

The shooter was definitely back on the floor and it wasn't that close.

However, that is not a foul....that player fell down all on his on with minimal contact.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The shooter was definitely back on the floor and it wasn't that close.

However, that is not a foul....that player fell down all on his on with minimal contact.

I'm in the same boat. IF it is even a foul it is not a shooting foul. Personally I don't think it's even a foul.

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I can’t remember where I lived at the time, but early in my officiating career I remember a commissioner who said that anything even reasonably close in this case should err on the side of three free throws (or an “and-one” in this case). I didn’t necessarily agree, but when your assigner wants it called a certain way, then you call it a certain way.

I hate to say it, but I think this philosophy on this type of play is more common among officials then we might like to admit.

As to the specific play in question, it’s not really that close. Should have been OOB or bonus. But if the official subscribes to the philosophy I just cited, it might explain why he said it was in the act of shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's exactly what I was asking about in a previously posted question.

The contact occurs well after the player has returned to the floor.

Now, whether you consider this a foul hinges entirely on whether you like calling "weak shit" or not.

[ODog]

No foul. He'd have hit the deck in an empty gym.