Foul after shooter returns to floor

[DrPete]

In watching the UVA-NC State game, Virginia player shoots a three from left corner, returns to the floor, and is fouled, then ball goes in the hoop. The crew counted the 3-point basket and awarded one free throw shot.
The contact was minimal, and clearly after the airborne shooter returned to the floor. Video would help here (5:54 to go in first half).

I see this often called as a "shooting" foul. I believe that it should be a regular old common foul since the shooter is no longer a shooter once he releases the ball and returns to the floor. Is the NCAA rule different from the NFHS rule set on this type of play? Do supervisors/commissioners want this called as a foul against a shooter as if it happened during the shot attempt?

[SC Official]

The NCAA and NFHS rules are the same, and I doubt supervisors are giving that type of instruction.

I don’t think I’ve ever called a foul for contact after the shooter touches the floor. Rarely is there any safety issue or advantage gained that would trigger a whistle from me. I might say “clean that up” if the defender is borderline boxing out and that normally does the trick.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by DrPete

In watching the UVA-NC State game, Virginia player shoots a three from left corner, returns to the floor, and is fouled, then ball goes in the hoop. The crew counted the 3-point basket and awarded one free throw shot.
The contact was minimal, and clearly after the airborne shooter returned to the floor. Video would help here (5:54 to go in first half).

I see this often called as a "shooting" foul. I believe that it should be a regular old common foul since the shooter is no longer a shooter once he releases the ball and returns to the floor. Is the NCAA rule different from the NFHS rule set on this type of play? Do supervisors/commissioners want this called as a foul against a shooter as if it happened during the shot attempt?

Twice this season in college games (including just yesterday) I have called common fouls when the shooter was illegally contacted after returning to the floor. In the other game eatlier this season, I called it, then later in the same half, my partner had the same call against the same player.

What college supervisors do tell us is not to split hairs on calls that are expected.

[JRutledge]

I have called many fouls or been on games where fouls were called on shooters that had come back to the floor. It happened I believe on Saturday in my college game by one of my partners. Not sure why it is a big deal, sometimes when the player comes back to the floor and it is clear the defender is still trying to get to them and makes contact.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

What college supervisors do tell us is not to split hairs on calls that are expected.

It's kind of interpreted as "until the player has completed the act of shooting" as opposed to a literal "returns to the floor."

[walt]

+1 to Bob Jenkins reply.

I had a coordinator tell us the player is entitled to complete the landing and we are to officiate the play as if the player is still "in the act of shooting" up until they have completed the entire act which includes a "full landing." This came from a game where a shooter rose up for a jump shot with her right foot slightly in front of her left and a defender moved forward toward her in an attempt to contest the shot. There was no contact by the defender but the defender's front foot came to the floor close to where the shooter released the ball on the try. As the shooter came down, her left foot hit the floor first and her right foot came down on the defender's front foot which caused the shooter to go off balance, stumble, and go to the floor. There was no other contact by the defender. We were told that this is a "take the shooter up, down, and landing space through completion of the act of shooting" play and the shooter should have been awarded free throws for being fouled in the act of shooting. The official on the play ruled that once her first foot hit the ground he ruled she was no longer in the act of shooting and ruled the landing on the defender's foot as incidental because the defender didn't make any other contact.

Because of that message, I have now covered this type of play in all of my pre-games in all my games. As Bob said and as this coordinator said, officiate all the way through until the player has completed the act of shooting.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DrPete

The contact was minimal, and clearly after the airborne shooter returned to the floor. Video would help here (5:54 to go in first half).

Thanks for the play reference. Good play to discuss. Here is the video.



Peace

[bucky]

Looks to me if foul is well after the shot. Technically speaking, it is almost a dead ball contact technical foul.

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by bucky

Looks to me if foul is well after the shot. Technically speaking, it is almost a dead ball contact technical foul.

When did the ball become dead?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

When did the ball become dead?

When the ball comes through the basket. It was not even close to a dead ball IMO.

Peace

[just another ref]

I don't see a foul at all.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

When did the ball become dead?

It's not even close to a dead ball foul.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't see a foul at all.

The defender goes right through the shooter's vertical space. Easy foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't see a foul at all.

I agree. I don't see a foul, and I think the contact that did occur is well after he returns to the floor.

[MechanicGuy]

I think a foul call is more than justifiable, but I'd probably lean towards no-call. If called though, I think this is late enough that it should be considered after the shot.

[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