Shooter fouled while shooting over backboard
 

If a shooter is fouled when shooting behind a rectangular backboard, does he get two free throws? I know it's a violation for the ball to pass over a rectangular backboard, but what do you do if there is a foul on the shooter before it goes over the backboard? thanks!

I see no reason not to award two shots.

Did the violation or the foul occur first?

Nevadaref brings up a good point. The issue is moot if the violation occurs first, at which point the foul (assuming not intentional/flagrant) is ignored.

That said, considering this scenario, the odds are high that the foul would occur first. If so, it's still considered to be in the act of shooting. In the event the ball goes in after having passed over the backboard, the shot doesn't count because the ball became dead when the violation occurred. But you would still award two FTs.

This is all assuming a rectangular backboard, of course. Seems like 99% of them are these days, but I suppose there are still a few fan backboards out there.

The shooter was fouled before the violation so I think cc55 nailed it. Thanks

We got into this on the weekend too.

A1 went hard at help defender along the baseline, should have been trapped but the help defender opened up to avoid an impact so A1 gathered and stepped into the space being held by arms between the two defenders. There is loads of contact easy foul call, however A1 postion behind the backboard and shooting motion made no chance that the shot was going to get to the rim without hitting the back of the board let alone having a chance to get to rim and go in.

She clearly went up trying to draw a foul and did. If defense had let her go the shot would have been a violation. So she may be in a shooting motion but reality is there may not actually be a legitimate attempt at goal being made. Contact stopped shot from going up though so we'll never know.

We sent her to line and B coach was unhappy but understood.

So if there is no legitimate attempt made, would this not mean it's NOT ever a shooting foul? If team is in the bonus, it's a 1-and-1. But under no circumstances is it a two-shot (shooting) foul?

Kinda like a player getting fouled shooting at the wrong basket?

Just wondering.

We Don't Call Anticipated Violations ...
 

Disagree. The player is shooting at the correct basket, and if the foul comes before the violation it's still a legitimate shot attempt, a bad legitimate shot attempt, but nevertheless a legitimate shot attempt.

Now sit back and enjoy some classic Larry Bird in Hartford, CT:

https://youtu.be/Ebx61XuFGX8

I don't have the book in front of me but doesn't it simply state that if the player is fouled in the act of shooting then it's a shooting foul? Whether the shot has a chance to be made, or would likely result in a violation as stated in this case, has zero effect on the call.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A "shot" at the wrong basket is, by definition, not a try. This is one of those situations that I've never seen, but it would be fascinating. A1 gets confused and starts to shoot a layup at B's basket. He is fouled by B1. After the foul the ball goes through the basket. Guess what? Wave it off, and if you're in the bonus go to the other end and shoot 1 and 1. I'm thinking this would be hard for the crowd/opposing coach to swallow.

talking off the top of my head...does it matter? Im an airborne shooter, even if I shoot poorly, until I land. Violation just means if it goes in it doesn't count but id still get my two shots... yes?

The case book has the play where .3 or less on clock. throw in pass to me, I catch, shoot, fouled. ball goes in. since it can only be a tap my basket does not count and I cannot catch it and try ,,,so rule says I get bonus situation..

Good Point, If It's An Airborne Shooter ...