Free Throws ...

[Nevadaref]

Bob and Raymond are both incorrect. Since the try was never released, there cannot be an airborne shooter BY RULE. Therefore, if the official determines that the act of shooting had ended (try clearly will not be successful) no FTs are warranted. Of course, a held ball is the correct decision in this play as described, but if that is missed, then a common foul is the next option.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Bob and Raymond are both incorrect. Since the try was never released, there cannot be an airborne shooter BY RULE. Therefore, if the official determines that the act of shooting had ended (try clearly will not be successful) no FTs are warranted. Of course, a held ball is the correct decision in this play as described, but if that is missed, then a common foul is the next option.

A1 went airborne to shoot. Whether or not they released the try is irrelevant. Shooting fouls without the release of the ball happen all the time.

A1is still airborne when the illegal contact occurs. Players are capable of releasing tries during their descent. Players are capable of releasing tries after having the ball initially capped by a defender.

If A1 wasn't capable of still releasing the try, then that contact to the forearm should have been ruled incidental.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

A1 went airborne to shoot. Whether or not they released the try is irrelevant. Shooting fouls without the release of the ball happen all the time.

A1is still airborne when the illegal contact occurs. Players are capable of releasing tries during their descent. Players are capable of releasing tries after having the ball initially capped by a defender.

If A1 wasn't capable of still releasing the try, then that contact to the forearm should have been ruled incidental.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You are hung up on the notion that A1 jumped to shoot. In this particular case that doesn’t matter. Since the ball was never released, A1 being airborne at the time of the foul is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the official deemed that he was still in the act of shooting at the time of the foul. The official clearly decided that the try had ended, so no FTs are warranted.

It is true that a foul in the act of shooting could prevent the ball from being released, but that foul would have to take place prior to the try ending.

[bob jenkins]

I agree with Nevada, and I apologize for my previous post. I frequently correct people on the definition of "Airborne Shooter", and I'm mad at myself for not seeing that in the OP.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since the try was never released, there cannot be an airborne shooter BY RULE.

That's the part that stymied me in this situation.

4-1-1: An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Therefore, if the official determines that the act of shooting had ended (try clearly will not be successful) no FTs are warranted. Of course, a held ball is the correct decision in this play as described, but if that is missed, then a common foul is the next option.

Thanks Nevadaref.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Of course, a held ball is the correct decision in this play as described, but if that is missed, then a common foul is the next option.

Indeed, a held ball appears to be the correct call, both by rule/case, and context/spirit of the game. I would disagree that a common foul is the next option.

By calling a common foul, nothing but confusion, not only for partners, but probably players/coaches/fans/table/etc. results. Most of the time, the correct ruling is the best ruling, but not always, and I think this case is proof.

The official erred by not choosing the correct, and best, call initially (held ball). The official erred again by choosing the correct, although not the best, call secondarily (common foul).

IMO, since the held ball was not correctly ruled, the official should have ruled a shooting foul, which is an incorrect ruling, but the best ruling.

I am willing to wager that the official was the only person in the gym who knew that technical rule on that play.

Many rules are set aside for the betterment of the game. I wonder why the official skipped an obvious ruling (held ball) that everyone would understand and elected to make a technical ruling that no one would understand (at the time of the play).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

I wonder why the official skipped an obvious ruling (held ball) that everyone would understand ...

All three officials passed on the held ball, probably because the lead's whistle sounded for the holding foul before the shooter returned to the floor.

If no foul had been called, I'm pretty sure one, possibly two, maybe three, officials would have whistled for a held ball.

The problem is that, by rule, there is no requirement for this airborne player to return to the floor for a held ball to be called.

4-25-2: A held ball occurs when: An opponent places his/her hand(s) on the ball and prevents an airborne player from throwing the ball or releasing it on a try.