Inconsistency in NF rules?

[Mark Padgett]

Let me bring up a point in NF rules that seems to be a contradiction. See if you agree.

We all know that once a player begins the continuous motion that usually leads to a try, contact after that point by a defender who is not set is a shooting foul (assuming there is enough contact to call a foul). It has been explained to me that the rationale for this is that once the shooter begins his shot, he is allowed to finish his movement unhindered. The exception to this is the player control foul, which states that if the defender is set prior to the shooter leaving the floor, and there is enough contact for a foul because the shooter comes down on the defender, the foul is on the shooter and the basket (if any) is wiped off.

My question is this - isn't there an inconsistency in the rule? Shouldn't the two theories be based on the same premise? What I mean is why is one based on when the motion starts and the other on when the floor is left?

If a shooting foul occurs after continuous motion begins, shouldn't the "defender is set" part start at the same time? Conversly, if the PC comes into play based on when the shooter leaves the floor, shouldn't the decision on a shooting foul be based on the same action? I'm not saying a PC foul shouldn't be called on a shooter, I'm just questioning the "beginning of the shooter's actual attempt".

It seems to me that both fouls are based on the definition when a shooter is really engaged in a try, but the definitions don't match. I know there is a definition of a try in the book, but I'm talking theory here.

What do you guys think? Am I just looking to be nit-picky or is there some feeling out there that these two rules should be brought into alignment, just for consistency's sake?

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Let me bring up a point in NF rules that seems to be a contradiction. See if you agree.

We all know that once a player begins the continuous motion that usually leads to a try, contact after that point by a defender who is not set is a shooting foul (assuming there is enough contact to call a foul). It has been explained to me that the rationale for this is that once the shooter begins his shot, he is allowed to finish his movement unhindered. The exception to this is the player control foul, which states that if the defender is set prior to the shooter leaving the floor, and there is enough contact for a foul because the shooter comes down on the defender, the foul is on the shooter and the basket (if any) is wiped off.

My question is this - isn't there an inconsistency in the rule? Shouldn't the two theories be based on the same premise? What I mean is why is one based on when the motion starts and the other on when the floor is left?

If a shooting foul occurs after continuous motion begins, shouldn't the "defender is set" part start at the same time? Conversly, if the PC comes into play based on when the shooter leaves the floor, shouldn't the decision on a shooting foul be based on the same action? I'm not saying a PC foul shouldn't be called on a shooter, I'm just questioning the "beginning of the shooter's actual attempt".

It seems to me that both fouls are based on the definition when a shooter is really engaged in a try, but the definitions don't match. I know there is a definition of a try in the book, but I'm talking theory here.

What do you guys think? Am I just looking to be nit-picky or is there some feeling out there that these two rules should be brought into alignment, just for consistency's sake?

Mark,
I have no idea of your meaning.
Both the shooting foul and the shooting PC occur only during habitual movement.
That makes them the same starting point... when the shooter is shooting, not before and not after.
Although, both of those common fouls may also occur when there is no shot, the potential for penalties of the offensive and defensive acts, with regard to a "shooting foul" always start at the same point.
mick

[JoeD1]

I think what he's talkihg about is the fact that in the rule book in reference to a PC foul by an airborne shooter, it says that the defender must establish position before the shooter leaves the floor, but as we all know you don't have to leave the floor to start a shot.

I think the two situations we're talking about are totally different. One is a foul by the offense and one by the defense. Those two things fall under different criteria. You talk about the difference between starting a shot and leaving the floor - there's nothing in the rule book that says a player in the act of shooting can't commit a PC foul.

Leaving the floor is only the reference in determining whether or not a defensive player established legal guarding position for determining a PC foul.

But, I could see where the wording could possibly perpetuate the myth that a player has to be in the air or jumping to be shooting. That's the reason an evaluator bites your head off for saying "on the floor" after a foul. That makes it sound like you have to be in the air to take a shot.

[mick]

Originally posted by JoeD1
I think what he's talkihg about is the fact that in the rule book in reference to a PC foul by an airborne shooter, it says that the defender must establish position before the shooter leaves the floor, but as we all know you don't have to leave the floor to start a shot.

I think the two situations we're talking about are totally different. One is a foul by the offense and one by the defense. Those two things fall under different criteria. You talk about the difference between starting a shot and leaving the floor - there's nothing in the rule book that says a player in the act of shooting can't commit a PC foul.

Leaving the floor is only the reference in determining whether or not a defensive player established legal guarding position for determining a PC foul.

But, I could see where the wording could possibly perpetuate the myth that a player has to be in the air or jumping to be shooting. That's the reason an evaluator bites your head off for saying "on the floor" after a foul. That makes it sound like you have to be in the air to take a shot.

JoeD1,
I don't need a defender set at the point of leaving the floor, I need the defender set before the driver/shooter is on his last step-and-a-half, which I deem as part of the shooter's habitual movement.
I must give the shooter more room, and require the defender to be in place a little earlier than you and others, if I am reading correctly.
mick