If airborne A1 passes the ball instead of shooting, s/he is still an airborne shooter as it relates to a player-control foul.

I'm sitting on false. Correct?

I have to agree. The rule defines the airborne shooter only.

I Agree To
 

Rule 4 Definitions
SECTION 1 AIRBORNE SHOOTER
ART. 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.
ART. 2 . . . The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting.

I have to agree too, but they need to be more definate about the answer.

Re: I Agree To
 

I don't need to sound rude, but why would "they need to be more definate (sic)"?

An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball ON A TRY.

A pass is not a try.

Therefor, a player who has released the ball on a pass cannot be an airborne shooter.

Well Bob, maybe they were thinking that the airborne player had intended to shoot initially and had started continuous motion.

While I agree that the answer is false, it does make one think a little bit. I've seen players who were obviously going to shoot and then bailed out and passed the ball after they got hammered. Even though the rules don't support it, they actually were an airborne shooter before getting fouled.

Z

The player you describe is never an airborne shooter, even though he/she is airborne and (in some sense) a shooter. A player is only an airborne shooter after he/she releases the ball on a try.

i agree!

:D By rule yes. I was merely pointing out that in the officials mind, (since he/she judged that the player was shooting), they were an airborne shooter. Then when they passed the ball they no longer were. I was agreeing that the answer is false, but I can certainly see why the original poster had some uncertainty.

Z

this is one i'm having problems with, explain to me why this wouldn't be a true statement, weather passing are shooting it still could relate to the player control foul. they make some of this verbage clear as mud?

Read Bob's answer above. And then read it again.

He makes it very very clear.

Also look up player control foul. That should clarify.

Thanks
David

No. They (sic) were an airborne player in the act of shooting. If the player is fouled now, then passes the ball, you'd still have two shots.

If the player shoots the ball, then s/he'd be an airborne shooter (until s/he returns to the floor). If the player is fouled, you'd have a shooting foul.

If the player passes the ball, s/he is an airborne player (NOT and airborne shooter) not holding or passing the ball. A foul here is a common foul. If A fouls, it won't be a PC foul.

The reason I brought this up.....they mention Player Control.....My thought....if a guy goes airborne, looks like he's gonna shoot and passes, then crashes into a defender who legally got there, you have a push rather than a player control foul. A foul either way but the penalty could be different (shots vs. ball out of bounds).

Dumb question if you ask me.

Actually, it's not really a dumb question. As you point out, you have to know the proper rule to assess the proper penalty.

As Bob said:
1) Player in air with ball. Shoots- then crashes into a defender while still airborne-->PC foul.
2) Player in air with ball. Passes- then crashes into defender while airborne-->common foul.

Good point, Larksy.

I took this as a pass/crash situation also.

i get it now, interesting situation to explain to the offending teams coach why the other teams shooting the bonus, i would bet most coaches would also assume this to be a player control foul.