Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I already knew it ...

I don't doubt that for a single second, but why keep it a secret?

Wait? Is this Candid Camera? C'mon Raymond. Are we on Candid Camera? Where's the camera? Is it the camera in our laptops?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't doubt that for a single second, but why keep it a secret?



Wait? Is this Candid Camera? C'mon Raymond. Where's the camera?

Because I'm doing other things during the day and not going to go find the exact citation in the rule book. It's pretty common knowledge (or should be) amongst veteran officials that after the ball is dead fouls can still be committed by or against an airborne shooter.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Because I'm doing other things during the day ...

You were noticeably absent from this thread (only one early post). This must be the busy time of the year for you at work. Hopefully you have tomorrow off from work. Happy Thanksgiving.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's pretty common knowledge among veteran officials that after the ball is dead fouls can still be committed by or against an airborne shooter.

Absolutely, but normally I think of the ball simply going in (or not) along with a foul by, or against, the airborne shooter.

The goaltending violation was the shiny object that distracted me.

Nice thread Blindolbat. Thanks.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why did it take so long for us to come up with this citation?

Us? See post #18

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

See post #18

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).

Agree. Would have liked to have seen it in the form of a question ... Wait? I'm being told ... Not Jeopardy? Never mind ... the quoted rule language, or at least the addition of the word "Note" to 4-19-1.

Now, back to that shiny object.

[BigCat]

See also 4.19.6A

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

See also 4.19.6A

4.19.6 SITUATION A: B1 obtains a legal position in A1’s path before A1 becomes airborne. A1 jumps and releases the ball on a try for goal. Before returning to the floor, airborne shooter A1 charges into B1. (a) Before the foul by A1, B2 commits basket interference; or (b) after the foul on A1, B2 slaps the ball on its downward flight.

RULING: In (a), both the violation and the foul are penalized. The basket interference by B2 causes the ball to become dead immediately. The violation is penalized by awarding the two points. The player-control foul on A1 is also charged. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. A defensive-goaltending or basket-interference violation committed prior to a player-control foul does not contradict the general statement that when a player-control foul occurs that player cannot score. In the case of a defensive violation, it is the violation which results in awarding the score. In (b), the ball becomes dead and the try ends immediately when the player-control foul on A1 occurs. The action of B2 is ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended. The ball is awarded to Team B for a throw-in from a designated spot out of bounds closest to where the foul occurred. (4-12-1, 6-7-4, 6-7-9 EXCEPTION, 7-5-4a, 9-11)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4.19.6 SITUATION A: B1 obtains a legal position in A1’s path before A1 becomes airborne. A1 jumps and releases the ball on a try for goal. Before returning to the floor, airborne shooter A1 charges into B1. (a) Before the foul by A1, B2 commits basket interference; or (b) after the foul on A1, B2 slaps the ball on its downward flight. RULING: In (a), both the violation and the foul are penalized. The basket interference by B2 causes the ball to become dead immediately. The violation is penalized by awarding the two points. The player-control foul on A1 is also charged. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. A defensive-goaltending or basket-interference violation committed prior to a player-control foul does not contradict the general statement that when a player-control foul occurs that player cannot score. In the case of a defensive violation, it is the violation which results in awarding the score. In (b), the ball becomes dead and the try ends immediately when the player-control foul on A1 occurs. The action of B2 is ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended. The ball is awarded to Team B for a throw-in from a designated spot out of bounds closest to where the foul occurred. (4-12-1, 6-7-4, 6-7-9 EXCEPTION, 7-5-4a, 9-11)

It's interesting that the NFHS made (b) a goaltending situation (which must involve a try).

What if (b) had been a basket interference (doesn't have to be a try) situation?

Same ruling with a different rationale?

[Raymond]

How do you have an airborne shooter if there's no try?

Are you just trying to extend this thread because it's come to a conclusion?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

How do you have an airborne shooter if there's no try?

Are you just trying to extend this thread because it's come to a conclusion?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Plus, it doesn't matter what B does (absent something arising to a T) since the ball is dead on the foul (it will be a TC foul, not a PC foul) by A.

NFHS made the specific case be goaltending, but it's not restrictive.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

How do you have an airborne shooter if there's no try?

I was basing my question on "ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended".

In situation (b), let's say that there was basket interference instead of goaltending, making the rationale of "the try ended" a moot point, the need for it to be a try to call goaltending is gone, with basket interference it can be a try, or not be a try.

I would think that the ruling would be the same, no basket, but for a different reason, the foul makes the ball dead, and one can't have basket interference with a dead ball up on the ring, or in the cylinder.

I just thought it odd that the NFHS didn't keep the basket interference situation for both (a) before the foul, and (b) after the foul, allowing us to compare apples to apples instead of forcing us to compare apples to oranges.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... it will be a TC foul, not a PC foul ...

Why not a player control foul?

RULING: In (a), both the violation and the foul are penalized. The basket interference by B2 causes the ball to become dead immediately. The violation is penalized by awarding the two points. The player-control foul on A1 is also charged. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. A defensive-goaltending or basket-interference violation committed prior to a player-control foul does not contradict the general statement that when a player-control foul occurs that player cannot score. In the case of a defensive violation, it is the violation which results in awarding the score. In (b), the ball becomes dead and the try ends immediately when the player-control foul on A1 occurs. The action of B2 is ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended. The ball is awarded to Team B for a throw-in from a designated spot out of bounds closest to where the foul occurred. (4-12-1, 6-7-4, 6-7-9 EXCEPTION, 7-5-4a, 9-11)

[Raymond]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Like I said, this thread is over because what should have been common knowledge to veteran officials has been documented with the proper citations. You are searching for things that I can't even decipher.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

I'm now referring to the new caseplay, 4.19.6.A, brought to our attention by BigCat.

Originally Posted by Raymond

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Just change the goaltending in situation (b) to basket interference.

I say same ruling, no basket, with a different rationale, one can't have basket interference with a dead ball up on the ring, or in the cylinder.

The original situation (b) with goaltending had a rationale that one couldn't have goaltending because it was no longer a try (a necessary component of goaltending).