Pass/intercept/crash - Sitch
 

Hypothetically, Team B in bonus.

A1 drives the lane, leaves his feet, making a pass.

Ball is released.
B2 grabs and possesses ball.
[Split second]
A1 lands on B1.
B1 falls to floor.

Does B1 shoot ?

Sure. All that should matter is team control at the time of the foul. If the incidents occur in the order you describe, B has team control when A fouls, so the bonus is in effect. Right?

Would it make a difference if player A was an airborn shooter? For instance, say a shorter player A is driving the lane against a much taller defender B. While in the air, A shoots and the ball is caught on its upward flight by B, so now B gains possession. A split second after the ball is clearly caught by B, A crashes into B, knocking him to the floor. Does B shoot bonus free throws in that case?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

lets see who can out absurd this...

however i will answer this -- the shot ended when B gained possession -- if B is in the bonus then yes they shoot why not?

I read this as A1 was still in the air from the shot when he crashed into B. This would make him an airborne shooter, and a player control foul. Airborne shooter status does not end until the shooter returns to the floor.

Your incredible 4 years of experience notwhithstanding, anyone can make standard, typical calls and sell them. It's the oddball ones that get us in trouble. The strange situations people dream up on this board have helped me many times when I see something new on the court. Inevitably, the oddball play will happen when you least expect it. If you can recall something you read on this board in that quick moment making the decision to blow the whistle or not, that could make a big difference.

I believe the shot ends when the ball clearly has no chance of going into the basket. I don't have my books, so I don't recall the exact wording. So if the shot ended while he was still in the air, is he still an airborn shooter?

if you read my original post you would have noticed that I answered. once B gains possession the shot attempt ends -- so since the shot has ended A is not longer an airborne shooter but I do not have my rulebook with me so if someone has the citation -- but I cannot imagine anything like this being explicitly included in the rulebook (maybe something somewhat similar) but this I cannot imagine THIS being addressed.

if I am wrong then good because at least we will have literature to define the players rolls here.

Nope, the definition is "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." Since A is still an airborne shooter, he has committed a player control foul.

also if player a and b have such a size disadvantage for him to put him on the floor would require quite a blow unless B was the strawman.

I dunno. I can remember catchin' a punt and gettin' hit on the knee by a little guy who was screaming down the field. I was moved.

I think you have a play on right here. The ball is intercepted and going the other way. To me it seems like this, unless a violent terribly ugly crash, would be a game disrupting whistle cause the other team is going the other way.

Open your mind a little. Often the situations we describe are exaggerated to make the question clearer. I could have said that A made contact and B was displaced, but then people could say, well it all depends on how much he was displaced, which is not the point. By saying he falls down, it makes it clear that a foul occurred.

Smitty, I'm surprised. mick

This sarcasm seems a little harsh to me. . .

The more pervasive this phrase becomes, the less I like it. Every whistle disrupts the game. Every whistle causes a break in the action. We can't hold the whistle simply b/c we don't want to disrupt the game. That's silly. The question is not whether we're going to disrupt the game. The question is whether the contact (or, in some cases, the violation) is worth disrupting the game.
I just think we're going to give some people the wrong idea when we use that phrase. It's overly simplistic.