Fun With The Act Of Shooting …
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

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

Was player still in act of shooting when foul occurred? Had shooter returned to the floor before the foul was committed?

Two choices: The player was in the act of shooting when fouled. The player returned to the court and was not in the act of shooting.

My comment: The player was in the act of shooting when fouled. Tough call. The act of shooting begins with the start of the try for field goal and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter. The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting. White #3 was an airborne shooter and had not yet returned to the floor (barely, by milliseconds) when she was fouled by Black #15.

Barely, By Milliseconds ...
 

The only way that I could make this call was by watching the video at 1/4 speed (only available to IAABO members) and stopping it when White #3 returned to the floor.

At regular speed, I was leaning toward White #3 having returned to the floor and not in the act of shooting, next looking for a live ball/dead ball. The foul occurred during a live ball, the ball was still in flight. Count the basket. Since it appears that White was not in the bonus, give White the ball on the endline.

It looks like the arm was hit in the air. And unless obvious, I am calling a shooting foul. This a harder play in a girl's game because players do not jump as high in some of these cases. But no reason to make this complicated and then awarded the ball out of bounds or give a bonus free throw situation. It has to stand out as nothing but after the shot IMO.

Peace

I don't split hairs on these plays. Unless it is obvious that they have already returned to the floor, I'm considering the foul in the act of shooting.

And if she didn't hit her arm, which I haven't looked hard enough to see if she did or not, there's a possibility I wouldn't have a whistle on this play. The calling official reports a push to the table. The shooter jumps forward on this play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Now to address two pet peeves.

1) The old Trail/new Lead runs straight for the basketball and ignores the players on the court. Even though nothing happens, they are gathered together and he should be monitoring the players until they disperse before retrieving the basketball.

2) The reporting official has subs at the table. When he calls them in, he has his back to the Lead (administering official) and sticks his hand up facing the other end of the court. He should turn to the new Lead and stick his hand up with his palm facing his partner, then turn his head to wave in the subs while still keeping his hand up facing his partner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No Foul ???
 

Surprised that IAABO didn't offer a third choice - no foul.

Keen Observation ...
 

Keen observation, sounds like Raymond has done his share of observations and evaluations.

The new Lead just had to get that basketball. One never knows when a fan will bolt out of the cheap seats, grab a basketball for a souvenir, and run out the fire exit into the parking lot.

The Center did a great job realizing that the players could use some adult supervision (White #3 did go down like a broken rag doll) and did move quickly toward the crowd (which turned out to be more joyous than confrontational).

At least the reporting official raised his hand for substitutes, more than some of our local "first year many times over" guys do.

It appears the defender jumped toward the shooter, leading to the pushing foul.

Alternate Situation ...
 

Only offered this alternate situation for those that believed that there was a foul, and that the foul came after the shooter contacted the floor.

Just wanted to emphasis that in this alternate case that the ball was still live since it was still in flight, that contacting the floor doesn't automatically make the ball dead (not wanting to go down the "dead ball foul must be intentional, or flagrant" rabbit hole).

In this video, the ball going in the basket makes the ball dead, not anything before that.

Note: Early returns have quite a few IAABO members commenting the shooter returns to the floor before she was fouled.

http://www.clearlysurely.com/blog/wp...abbit-hole.jpg

I see the defender turn her hip. I see the shooter landing forward of the spot where she initially jumped from.

Tough To Call ...
 

Tough to call.

Not much A to B movement by the defender.

I ended up believing that defender Black #15's right arm hit airborne shooter White #3's right shoulder.

Tough to call in real time. Tough to call in 1/4 time.

From my perspective, it was not an A to B foul, but an illegal use of hands foul. The illegal use of hands happened while the shooter was still airborne. Therefore, score the goal, and the shooter shoots one free throw.

I would have liked an endline view of the play. The official has a much better angle. It looks like it could not be a foul at all with the basic philosophy I have stated before on this site and many other places. But I am sure this foul was expected and likely no one said anything, so there you go.

Peace

The swipe by black happens when white is at the apex of her jump. Assuming that's the foul call, it's easy to see she was in the air.

And, I agree with Raymond -- the "way it's called" is to give the benefit of the doubt to a shooting foul -- even if the player has returned to the floor, if they are still "completing the normal actions associated with a shot" (my words) call the shooting foul.

Already Landed Shooter Taken Out ...
 

Agree. The only time that I may call a foul after the shooter returns the floor, is on a three point attempt where the shooter clearly has already returned to the floor and then gets "taken out" by a defender running at the shooter whose momentum carries him into the "already landed" shooter.

Very rare, may go a few years between such calls. When I call these (rarely), this not an airborne shooter play, and thus becomes a common foul play (bonus, not bonus, free throws, throwin, etc.). Because of the distance (and time in flight) of the try (from three point range) it's usually occurs during a live ball (not wanting to go down the "dead ball foul must be intentional, or flagrant" rabbit hole).

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.