Which takes precedence in the following scenario:
 

So what is the violation for the following scenario:

1)Player jumps to shoot the ball
2)While in the air, he gets fouled(slapped on the wrist)
3)The player lands on the ground without releasing the ball

My question is if this would be considered a foul against the player, or a traveling violation since the player went up and down without releasing the ball - since he started to travel before he was fouled(to me it seems that the traveling violation should take precedence).

timo1980:

Its late and I am tired but I will bite. Why would you do you think the traveling violation should take precedence?

By the way, the correct answer to this play is that the shooter gets to shoot two or three free throws (depending upon whether he was fouled attempting a two or three-point field goal).

MTD, Sr.

You say he "started" to travel. The key here is that he didn't. You can start to do a lot of things but not necessarily go through with it.

Nevertheless, the play is dead as soon as the foul happens. When that foul happened, he was in the process of shooting. So him coming down without releasing the ball really has no bearing on the play.

So yeah, he'd shoot two FT's. (Or 3)

There's no "starting" to travel. The travel occurs or it doesn't, and if it occurs, it does so pretty much in an instant. Then, the ball is dead. Before he hits the ground, he can at least shoot, pass, or call time out and maybe he can start a dribble (depending on facts not mentioned).

If you are deeming the contact a foul, then its a foul. If not in the act of shooting, the ball becomes dead. If in the act, well, just look the rest of that up. But you're going to be shooting free throws.

Nope, in this case the play(and ball) is dead when the try is over or if the shooter commits a PC foul. Big difference.

Take another look.

Whatever happens first is what takes precedence. To paraphrase Yoda, "Started? Started? There is no started. Either travel, or travel not."

By this logic, a defender should try to foul a player so hard he can't release the shot, therefore causing him to travel.

The foul caused the player to travel. I got the foul.

So what was the call?

I looked up the official nba rules but could not find a clear answer. The reason why I think it should be a traveling violation is from experience, when I used to play 5 years ago back in bulgaria(in high school), my coach seemed to think it's a traveling violation.
Not sure if there's a specific rule, I was hoping someone here would know for sure :)

timo - start worrying about the NBA rule on something when you start working NBA games. Of course, there's a vacancy now. :p

Coaches have the peculiar habit of trusting in some strange and inexistent rules. Your words confirm that this habit is spread in all countries and with all rule sets.

It's legal to jump while having the ball (even in FIBA :)) in order to shoot or pass. It's a foul to cause contact on a shooter or passer putting them at a disadvantage: isn't it a disadvantage to travel because of that illegal contact? Therefore the illegal contact is a foul, which happened before the travel.

Ciao

I would disagree with that. The only reason you are saying 2 or 3 shot foul is because the OP said he jumped to shoot. However, since he didn't actually shoot the ball the OP could be guessing what the intent of the player with the ball was. We should not guess, especially at intent.

I think the correct answer is you got a personal foul, and referee judgment as to if it's a 2 or 3 shot attempt, or on the floor. I have seen players dribble into the lane and have a open look at a layup, get fouled, and pass the ball at the last possible second, which makes the foul on the pass. It would be less of a judgment here but nonetheless a judgment call. Now before you go ape-sh!t-bananas, I have also seen where the shooter was awarded 2 shots even though he passed it. It all depends on our judgment.

Another thing to be cautious of here is if the ball was held where the shot attempt couldn't get off and the shooter returned to the floor with the ball. This would be a held ball. So I got in this order, foul, held ball, shooting foul, but defiantly no traveling. Player has got to give me some kind of effort to shoot the ball or it's on the floor because I'm not guessing intent.

Too late.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ananadance.gif

And when in doubt because the player could not complete the action, give the free throws.

Many times officials make mistakes. Of course it is a judgment call, but if a player moves as if starting a jump shot, I would say it is a shot, unless there is a pass after the foul.

There was no held ball in the described play. What effort to shoot can make a player when struck strongly? Or even not strongly, but is such a way to make them lose their balance? A jump shot movement is a try for goal, unless etc. etc.

From the NCAA rule book, here is the definition of act of shooting.
I believe that NF has the same concept, which is the same also in FIBA. (Italics added by me.) The rules don't mention any "effort to shoot". There is a "may" in the final sentence, which means that the official has to see the whole play, in order to judge correctly.

At least you agree there is no travel. :)

Ciao

Please let me know when you're going to call "on the floor" on a foul committed on a player who's in the <b>air</b> trying to <b>shoot</b>. Damn, I gotta see that one.:D

You outdo even yourself sometimes. You're in a category all by yourself when it comes to moronic statements.

The OP said that he <b>JUMPED</b> to <b>SHOOT</b>!!

<font size = + 4><b>JUMPED!!!!</b></font>

<font size = + 4><b>SHOOT!!!!</b></font>

Put those together and you can't freaking-well have "on the floor", Cletus.

And, btw, you can still have a two or 3 shot foul called on a player who is "on the floor" anyway. The determining factor is whether the player was in the act of shooting, not whether he was "on the floor" or airborne. Real officials who actually own rule books know that.

King of the Silly Monkeys......:rolleyes: