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?