Late in the Oklahoma-Nebraska game tonight with the score way out of reach in OU's favor, there is a lob pass that is obviously an ally-oop attempt but the player on the receiving end is fouled on the way up before he even touched the ball. He was somewhat undercut and lost his balance but in falling got his hand on the ball and tapped it into the basket. The ref called the foul, but also counted the basket. I think it definitly should have been a foul, no argument, but not a shooting foul and the no basket. Any thoughts?

I guess the question is, can the habitual shooting motion begin before the basketball is in hand?

You might be technically correct, but common sense you are wrong. I would call the foul on the shot too. At least from the highlight I saw. Just because you have contact does not mean you have a foul. So you can wait to see how the play is going to finish.

Peace

So if what would the call have been had the foul knocked the receiver off line enough to cause him to miss the ball entirely and the pass had sailed out of bounds? Do we still have a shooting foul?

Nope. The rules don't allow it.

NCAA R4-60--"A shooter is a player who attempts a <b>try</b> for a field goal or free throw".

NCAA R 4-67-2-- "A <b>try</b> starts when the player begins the motion that habitually precedes the <b>release</b> of the ball on a <b>try</b>".

NFHS R4-40-3 says the same thing about releasing the ball.

There is nowayinhell you can have a "try" without the ball being in contact with the player's hand(s). If a player is fouled before touching the ball, it's not a shooting foul.

I suppose you could consider the leap on an ally-oop to be the beginning of the mothion that habitually precedes the release. What about a foul on a rebounder who is attempting to tap the ball into the goal? We put them at the line even if the foul occurred before they actually contacted the ball, don't we?

That's what I was thinking, but in all fairness to the official it was all pretty quick in taking place. It just seemed to me the foul was before he contacted the ball and the reason I say so is because the whistle blew before he touched the ball, from my perspective at least.

BITS:

JR hit the nail on the head with his rules references and interpretation. And to answer your question, the answer is no.

MTD, Sr.

As MTD said, we had better not be putting them on the line if the foul occurred before the "tap". That's would be completely wrong, by rule. The definition of a "tap" says that it's "the contacting of the ball with any part of the player's hand(s) in an attempt to direct the ball into his/her basket. If they are fouled before contacting the ball, then they are being fouled before they are "tapping" the ball. It's no different than the foul being committed on the dribbler before he picks the ball up to shoot. In both cases, they haven't met the rule book definition of being fouled during a "try" or "tap".

Sometimes it's better to get it right on the court rather than getting the "test question" right. Count it. In both plays described here. And I'd sleep quite well at night, too.

Only if the boni is in effect.

Sometimes it's better to get it right on the court rather than getting the "test question" right. Count it. In both plays described here. And I'd sleep quite well at night, too. [/B][/QUOTE]Well, I'm the opposite, I guess. I couldn't sleep at all at night if I knew that I deliberately screwed the other team by handing their opponents a basket that shoulda never been counted by rule. Could you sleep as well if the team that you gave that basket to ended up winning by a point, Rich?

Just can't agree with you on this one.

Well, I'm the opposite, I guess. I couldn't sleep at all at night if I knew that I deliberately screwed the other team by handing their opponents a basket that shoulda never been counted by rule. Could you sleep as well if the team that you gave that basket to ended up winning by a point, Rich?

Just can't agree with you on this one. [/B][/QUOTE]

Absolutely. I wouldn't call something that I didn't feel was intended by the spirit of the rule.

Absolutely. I wouldn't call something that I didn't feel was intended by the spirit of the rule. [/B][/QUOTE]What is the spirit of this rule, in your opinion? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.