Non-airborne shooter?

[Mark Padgett]

OK - while looking at another thread about airborne shooters, this thought popped into my weird mind. Although it's almost unheard of to have a player shoot a set shot, how would you determine if you considered a foul on that player a shooting foul if the ball has already left the hands? Would that be the criteria, or would you consider that player to have "shooter status" to a different point, like until it's obvious the shot would will not be successful?

I tried to remember how it was called back in my youth when the jump shot hadn't been invented yet, but my lifestyle in the 60s has taken it's toll and I can't remember much of anything that happened before breakfast this morning.

Of course, I'm referring to NF rules, if that makes a difference.

[Coltdoggs]

I think I have to say when the release of the ball happens and any natural follow through end....We would have to be judge and jury on that second part (not like we are not already that anyway but...)....

I think I am going to have to see the player's shot to determine that natural follow thorough and if truly a set shot, I think I may allow a 1/2 second after release (about the time an airborne player takes to come down)....

[Junker]

I would think after the ball is released they were no longer a shooter. BTW, are we talking the current ball over your head release, or the underhand, between the legs, Rick Barry style shot? Padgett is talking so far back, I thought I'd better ask. Hey, there aren't points for style, just 2 for getting it in the peach basket.

[rockyroad]

For the definitive answer to this question, let us turn once again to Hollywood and look at the situation from that classic basketball film "The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh". In that film we see the character known as "Set-shot Buford" get fouled just after the ball leaves his hands and the officials count the basket and give him one free throw. So that must mean that he was still considered a shooter even though the ball had left his hands and both feet were on the floor. There you have your answer.

Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer. By definition, if the player's feet are on the floor, they are not an airborne shooter. If the ball has left their hands and the "normal shooting motion" has ended, they are no longer a shooter, period. So in the original post, that player is not in the act of shooting.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

OK - while looking at another thread about airborne shooters, this thought popped into my weird mind. Although it's almost unheard of to have a player shoot a set shot, how would you determine if you considered a foul on that player a shooting foul if the ball has already left the hands? Would that be the criteria, or would you consider that player to have "shooter status" to a different point, like until it's obvious the shot would will not be successful?

I tried to remember how it was called back in my youth when the jump shot hadn't been invented yet, but my lifestyle in the 60s has taken it's toll and I can't remember much of anything that happened before breakfast this morning.

Of course, I'm referring to NF rules, if that makes a difference.

I'd read the definitions section in the rules book to make the determination (The act of shooting begins ... and ends .... and includes ....)

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'd read the definitions section in the rules book to make the determination (The act of shooting begins ... and ends .... and includes ....)

Aw, Bob. You spoiled all the fun. I was hoping to get a discussion going then jump in and say, "IT'S IN THE RULES, DUH!"

What a party pooper.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Aw, Bob. You spoiled all the fun. I was hoping to get a discussion going then jump in and say, "IT'S IN THE RULES, DUH!"

What a party pooper.

If you want to stir the pot, there are more effective ways than socratic questioning.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

If you want to stir the pot, there are more effective ways than socratic questioning.

I never stirred the pot. It would lose its effectiveness.

CAUTION: 60s FLASHBACK ALERT!!!