In the Act of Shooting?
 

Hello all. In last night's college basketball game between the Dayton Flyers and the Akron Zips, there was a controversial situation in the last seconds as Akron (down by 3), got the rebound off a missed FT and was fouled, seemingly in the act of shooting. The referee's awarded 2 shots though (for the double bonus), to the delight of the home crowd and to the disbelief of Akron fans. There is a video of the incident here (with multiple replays)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjejFJ6IOJ8

There has been plenty of debate on both sides whether or not the foul was committed before or during the act of shooting and I'd like to get all of your opinions.

I agree completely it was in the act of shooting, I think this was the wrong call. I see no reason to bail out the defense on such a horrible, unforgivably stupid play, it appeared to me that the shooter had begun the habitual motion that would preceed the release.....we had this happen last week in a VG game, halftime from 3/4 court a girl chucks one and the defender just rakes her across the arm...one of my partners got the call and we gave her three shots...of course the coach went nuts, but hey direct it at your player...

Couple of questions:

- How many team fouls had Dayton already committed in the half? I would assume if the officials had ruled it to be a "shot", then 3 FT's would've been awarded, so is it possible they were awarding non-shooting, double-bonus FT's?

- Which team are you rooting for? :)

-The game was in double overtime and both teams had above 10 fouls so yes, 2 foul shots were awarded for the double-bonus (sorry if I didn't make that clear).

-I am a diehard Dayton season ticket holder and wanted to strangle Charles Little (the Dayton defender) for such a dumb play.

I will grant that it was "close" in terms of whether it was before the try had started or not, this was not a slam dunk call one way or the other. The defense reached out and grabbed just as the try was started IMO, I can't really argue with the call one way or another given that the officials had to make it at full speed....hey college guys this isn't a reviewable one is it?

Well, if you are making the determination it was a try, then, yes, the try had clearly started; I don't think it was that close.

However, how can you be totally sure it was a try and not a pass? Perhaps the official(s) decided the player was just trying to pass the ball up the court to a player closer to the basket? Granted, given the time left and situation, there is a fair argument for a try, but I think there could be enough justification to rule a pass, therefore, double bonus FT's. Only the officials on the game can tell us for sure.

Given the situation you would have a tough argument that it was anything other than a try...I would think that they ruled that the contact/foul occurred prior to the start of the try...I do think that it was close though you can see the defender reach for the offensive player as his body is turning to get into a position to start the try....this would take some huge stones to call though, unfortunately it looks like they took the easy road..but without talking to them and getting their thought process I wouldn't necessarily condemn them...

Is it a travel ?

Player receives pass with both feet established on the ground (especially the right foot, which is near the block)... and then player seems to do a "crow hop" as he prepares to heave the shot... all prior to contact and releasing ball.

Kind of looks like a travel to me.

IMHO it was a try as there was only 2.0, I believe on the clock, and he gathered the ball and started the attempt obviously not trying to pass at least from the video. Jurassic eloquently addressed this situation(gathering the ball for an try) a week or two ago and a bell went off in my head making this crystal clear.

Tough call, and it didn't happen five feet from me, just my armchair take on it.

I was just going to post the same thing. Travel and go get a beer...:D

Yep sure was, didn't even look for this first time around...maybe that is how they justified the two shots, they sped up the timing of the contact to where it happened before the travel and therefore before the try started:rolleyes:

I see the travel before the try.

I see a shooting foul if no travel was called.

For sure it was a shooting foul ... however, the travel came first!

You think it was controversial the refs calling this a non-shooting foul.....can you imagine if they would have called the travel? :eek:

Get the call right! :)

Whoa nelly! I've got a travel.

Either way, that defensive player would be doing a little running the following day for being the bone-head of the game.

I actually think a travel would be the LEAST controversial call they could have made! Travel occurred prior to any contact and prior to the start of any try...nothing after the travel matters....it might have been controversial for two seconds after until they showed the replay, but there wouldn't be a bunch of officials debating it on a chat board the next day:)

Whether a player was or wasn't in the act of shooting is a judgement call, which is not allowed to be reviewed with courtside equipment.