Had a college game once where both I and a partner each called one on the same player. Football player looking dude who twice called himself boxing out a three-point shooter by planting his ass right in the shooters' mid-section after they had clearly landed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Not much movement? Look at the defender's feet before she jumps versus where when she lands. She's practically in the middle of the FTL and ends up nearly on the FTLL.

Obviously, we're stuck with the view from the camera angle, but the defender jumped toward the calling official, so his view would have been really good.

Plus, the official called a pushing foul, not illegal use of the hands, lending support for the A-to-B type of foul.

Owner Of A John Deere Tractor, You Left Your Lights On ...
 

I only thought that I had these guys in my small, rural high school games.

On Thanksgiving, playing linebacker, at 250 pounds, on the football team; two weeks later, the backup center of the basketball team.

These football players, rightfully so, want to have fun with their friends, stay in shape, and play basketball in the off-season winter months, and anybody with a pulse who can walk and chew gum at the same time makes the basketball team in these small, rural schools. If one's only tool is a football then every problem looks like a tackle (apologies to Mark Twain).

A Glancing Blow ...
 

Yes, the defender did move, but not directly toward the shooter (there was some glancing contact). Maybe I should have said that there was not much A to B movement, but there was some A to C movement.

Yes, but not directly toward the shooter.

The shooter dropped to the floor like a broken rag doll that was shot in the head with high powered rifle. I believe that this was a result of the hard arm to shoulder contact, not the glancing body to body contact. Watch for the direction that the shooter falls, it's not the direction of the body to body contact.

The shooter's shoulder got hit with an arm, not a hand.

If there are a few different contact points on a shooter, my favorite signal is the push signal. It explains a lot different types of contact, like a "push" with one's arms, hands, thighs, or body.

The signal (and call) often isn't 100% kosher, but I still like it.

F=ma ...
 

Newton's Second Law Of Motion: The acceleration of an object by a force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the force, in the same direction as the force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.

My high school physics teacher, baseball coach, and basketball coach, Mr. Letize, would be so proud of me.

There will be a quiz tomorrow.

Not going to split that hair too finely. If there is any chance the interaction/contact started before the landing, I'm going shooting foul.

As for the foul, the two players both jumped A to B. When both do that, the foul, as long as A's jump is not unnatural and just seeking contact, the foul is on the defender. The defender is the one that has to have LGP. If the defender doesn't and the shooter is making a normal motion, it can only be a block.

In this play, the angle isn't perfect to see the defenders jump angle through normal tells, but it isn't that hard to tell if you use a few clues...When she jumped, her left foot was dead center in the lane and she was not in a very wide stance. She landed with the right foot on the far lane line and closer to the endline. She traveled at least 3-4 feet laterally in the air.

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...kdPgleKg%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary: Correct Answer: The player returned to the court and was not in the act of shooting.

The defensive player moves her arms forward in an attempt to block the try. We don't have the best view of the play, but it appears that this block attempt did not contact the shooter. Assuming there was no illegal contact on the attempted blocked shot. The illegal contact on the play may have occurred when the defender returned to the floor and lands on the player who attempted the try. (This is when the official reacted and stopped the clock for the foul.)

When this contact occurred, the player who attempted the try was in contact with the floor. Since the player who attempted the try had returned to the floor, she no longer was an airborne shooter and is not considered in the act of shooting. (4-1) Since the foul occurred after the player returned to the floor, the foul penalty will be assessed based on the bonus situation. (4-8-1) If the team is in the bonus, free throws will be awarded based on the number of team fouls committed in the half. If the team is not in the bonus, the team in white will be awarded the ball for a throw-in nearest the site of the foul. (7-5-4)

About 90% of respondents had this foul in the act of shooting. If the illegal contact did occur on the shot attempt, that assessment would clearly be correct. If that is the case, the airborne shooter would be awarded one free throw as her try was successful. (Rule 10 Penalties Summary item 2)

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: The player was in the act of shooting when fouled 91% (including me). The player returned to the court and was not in the act of shooting 9%.

Controversy ???
 

Wow. IAABO "Gang of Four" co-interpreters ruling against 90% of the members who commented.