4-Point Play?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by inigo montoya

Did we get this right?

Yep.

[Coltdoggs]

When the shooter returned to the floor he was, well...no longer a shooter...

You had a foul committed by B AFTER THE SHOT so I would say this was done properly if I am reading it correctly...

[inigo montoya]

When B's head coach asked if the foul was on the shooter, I replied that "the player who tried for goal was the same player who got fouled, but that he was no longer a shooter once he returned to the floor. The foul occurred well after the shot." I was careful not to reply that his player had "fouled the shooter" after the shot or otherwise. The (ball-watching) Trail agreed the foul was after the shot attempt.

[Adam]

"No, coach, the rebounder got fouled."

[Toxic Czar]

Do you call the foul "after the shot" when the defender "boxes out" the shooter by ramming his/her butt into the shooter after the shooter's feet have returned to the floor and then backing into the shooter knocking him/her over?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Toxic Czar

Do you call the foul "after the shot" when the defender "boxes out" the shooter by ramming his/her butt into the shooter after the shooter's feet have returned to the floor and then backing into the shooter knocking him/her over?

You should.

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by Toxic Czar

Do you call the foul "after the shot" when the defender "boxes out" the shooter by ramming his/her butt into the shooter after the shooter's feet have returned to the floor and then backing into the shooter knocking him/her over?

Is there displacment or would you deem the ramming as incidental..

Edit: just reread and it clearly says knocking them over....

Yeah...foul after the shot...But to my first response, look at the contact and see what's happening...be careful too...you may get a kid who who starts anticipating this and flops...

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Toxic Czar

Do you call the foul "after the shot" when the defender "boxes out" the shooter by ramming his/her butt into the shooter after the shooter's feet have returned to the floor and then backing into the shooter knocking him/her over?

Yes, just think about it this way - the term "airborne shooter" is actually redundant. You can't have a shooter without him/her being airborne. Except, of course, if it's 1960 and they're Don Nelson shooting a set shot.

[Junker]

We had similar plays 3 times Monday night. We had a JV college men's team against a very good rec team. 3 times in the game a 3 point shooter for the rec team got pushed after he returned to the floor. We called it on the rebound every time. They were all easy since he barely left the floor to shoot.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

the term "airborne shooter" is actually redundant. You can't have a shooter without him/her being airborne. Except, of course, if it's 1960 and they're Don Nelson shooting a set shot.

This is absolutely wrong! The act of shooting begins with the habitual motion that precedes the release of a try. So as soon as you start the shooting motion, you're a shooter, regardless of whether you're airborne or not.

If you start the motion, get fouled, but never get airborne, you're still going to the line to shoot 2.

You absolutely can have a shooter without him/her being airborne.

[inigo montoya]

It was still fairly early in the game and B already had [six] fouls. So when a defensive player reaches an arm all the way across an offensive player's body in order to prevent rebounding position, I fail to see how this will prevent future problems. He didn't just grab jersey - the arm was extended all the way across and it happened right in front of me. If they can't control themselves and avoid fouling at low speeds near the perimeter, I feel I'm only encouraging more contact at higher speeds and inside.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by inigo montoya

It was still fairly early in the game and B already had [six] fouls. So when a defensive player reaches an arm all the way across an offensive player's body in order to prevent rebounding position, I fail to see how this will prevent future problems. He didn't just grab jersey - the arm was extended all the way across and it happened right in front of me. If they can't control themselves and avoid fouling at low speeds near the perimeter, I feel I'm only encouraging more contact at higher speeds and inside.

I too encourage a slow whistle to see how the play develops. It doesn't matter that it was right in front of you or that it was all the way across his body. If the play is just too rough or the game needs some calming down, call it quickly. Aside from that....see the whole play and the effect of the contact....if it made a difference, call it. It the shot goes in or the rebound doesn't come anywhere near them, don't call it....it's generally not a foul if there is no advantage.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by inigo montoya

It was still fairly early in the game and B already had [six] fouls. So when a defensive player reaches an arm all the way across an offensive player's body in order to prevent rebounding position, I fail to see how this will prevent future problems. He didn't just grab jersey - the arm was extended all the way across and it happened right in front of me. If they can't control themselves and avoid fouling at low speeds near the perimeter, I feel I'm only encouraging more contact at higher speeds and inside.

No, you're not but you are missing the point. That point is too have a slow whistle and wait to see if the contact effects the play.

If the shot goes in, then the arm across the chest has no effect on the play. If a rebound goes to the opposite side, then there's no effect on the play. If the rebound comes off to that side, now you have a player at a disadvantage. TWEET!

If he knocks him to the floor, that's a different story.

Originally Posted by inigo montoya

Thank you for your opinion. At this point in my life, I am more concerned with calling the game in a way is consistent with the rules and in making sure that we maintain control of it for 32 minutes. If by definition holding is not reaching your arm across an opponent's body and impeding his progress so that he cannot occupy a position on the court he would otherwise be legally entitled to, then I'm not sure what is.

It's not just his opinion. It's the officiating philosophy of advantage/disadvatage that quality officals adhere to. To just blindly make a call because the rule book says something does NOT make one a good official. I would suggest you open your NFHS rule book and read the page before rule one. It explains this philosophy. There's no reason to call this a foul except that you think the rule book says to. It does NOT.

When you joined this forum in November, you told us that you were a 2nd year official. Don't take this the wrong way but that's apparent with this call. You were smart enough to join this forum. Take what the veterans here are giving you and add it to your game.

#1, SLOW your whistle down because I can guarantee you it's too fast. All new officials have this issue.

#2, WAIT and see the whole play. That may mena blowing your whistle late but that's okay. Watch an NBA game, they do it all the time.

Or, just ignore us as a bunch of old guys who don't know what we're talking about.

I hope you're smart enough to figure which road to choose.

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is absolutely wrong! The act of shooting begins with the habitual motion that precedes the release of a try. So as soon as you start the shooting motion, you're a shooter, regardless of whether you're airborne or not.

If you start the motion, get fouled, but never get airborne, you're still going to the line to shoot 2.

You absolutely can have a shooter without him/her being airborne.

You know...you have a VERY valid point...(I think OP may have been talking about a set shooter's try ending though...

I agree with the motion part of your post Scrapper....Take the post player who in all reality gives a pump fake to get the guard off the floor and gets heavy contact. Let's say I didn't just tell you it was a pump fake and he really intended to shoot the ball but the contact was such that he couldn't get the shot off....You have to be going shooting foul b/c his motion before the release (even though it was a pump fake) must be judged as such...shooting motion, even though he's on the floor

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is absolutely wrong! The act of shooting begins with the habitual motion that precedes the release of a try. So as soon as you start the shooting motion, you're a shooter, regardless of whether you're airborne or not.

If you start the motion, get fouled, but never get airborne, you're still going to the line to shoot 2.

You absolutely can have a shooter without him/her being airborne.

Scrapper1,
Does the shooter, if they don't become airborne ever on the shot, have to release the ball in order to be considered a shooter? Some of the 5th graders don't jump with the ball and don't release the ball when they hear the whistle.