4-Point Play?

[inigo montoya]

JV-Boys game, NFHS rules (home team was even in white!).

A1 shoots a 2-point jumpshot while just inside the 3-point line while loosely guarded by B1. A1 returns to the floor. While the ball is in the air, A1 takes a step toward the basket to begin getting into position for a possible rebound. B1 reaches out with an arm across A1's midsection and clearly holds him. *tweet*. Ball goes in.

The foul on B1 is the 7th team foul therefore A is in the bonus.

Count the basket (2 points), A1 will shoot the one-and-one?

What was reported to the table was "Basket counts [with appropriate signal]. After the shot but before the ball went in there was a foul by B1. That is the seventh team foul for B, therefore A will shoot one and one."

B head coach obviously was upset and looked at me like I had two heads. Fans obviously don't understand the "4 point play" and how you can have one-and-one on a made basket.

Lead is POSITIVE the foul occurred after the continuous motion of the shooter. Did we get this right?

[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.

[CJRef]

The foul you called as described in the OP is one that I would hold my whistle for a half-second on. The player gets the shot off. In the event it doesn't go in, is it a long rebound that the shooter would legitimately have a chance at getting? Is someone else from the shooting team going to get the rebound if it happens to be a shorter rebound? If it goes in, is there really an advantage being gained? It's clearly illegal, but is the hold going to cause an obvious situation where B yanks A's jersey down or pulls him to the ground? I could see if its a situation where A might be knocked down and possibly injured, but based on the limited description it sounds like B might just be a little grabby and not necessarily intent on knocking A down with an aggressive box-out. Once you call this foul, you've now put your crew in the position of having to look for something relatively minor at the other end because I guarantee the coach is now going to be nitpicking all rebounding contact. I would think that the coach would be less likely to have a negative reaction if you had called the foul on the shot, as long as you could articulate what had happened (or even if you couldn't).

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by CJRef

Once you call this foul, you've now put your crew in the position of having to look for something relatively minor at the other end because I guarantee the coach is now going to be nitpicking all rebounding contact. I would think that the coach would be less likely to have a negative reaction if you had called the foul on the shot, as long as you could articulate what had happened (or even if you couldn't).

CJ:

Grow a pair!!!
Who gives a rat's toches about the coach and his reaction. The contact was judged to have put the player at a disadvantage. I can't believe you suggest a made-up foul so as to appease the coach.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CJRef

The foul you called as described in the OP is one that I would hold my whistle for a half-second on. The player gets the shot off. In the event it doesn't go in, is it a long rebound that the shooter would legitimately have a chance at getting? Is someone else from the shooting team going to get the rebound if it happens to be a shorter rebound? If it goes in, is there really an advantage being gained? It's clearly illegal, but is the hold going to cause an obvious situation where B yanks A's jersey down or pulls him to the ground? I could see if its a situation where A might be knocked down and possibly injured, but based on the limited description it sounds like B might just be a little grabby and not necessarily intent on knocking A down with an aggressive box-out. Once you call this foul, you've now put your crew in the position of having to look for something relatively minor at the other end because I guarantee the coach is now going to be nitpicking all rebounding contact. I would think that the coach would be less likely to have a negative reaction if you had called the foul on the shot, as long as you could articulate what had happened (or even if you couldn't).

I agree with the first part of what you wrote, but disagree strongly with the second half.

I don't agree with the having to find something on the other end to please the coach that is upset with the call. No reason to change the way things are called just because the coach is upset.

However, I do agree with the patient whistle part. I don't think you go as far as judging whether A1's teamate would get the rebound, but if the shot is missed and the hold causes A1 a disadvantage in trying to rebound the ball you call it then. As justacoach was aluding to, don't worry about the coaches reaction, explain the situation and continue to call your game.

[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.