Q from 1st Year: Shooting Foul on blocked shot

[ca_rumperee]

Player A1 goes up for shot. Player B1 touches ball as it leaves hand. Player B1 then contacts player A1's arm/torso.

Fans/coaches/players all see the blocked shot very clearly. I see the contact after the blocked shot. I call foul on B1, awarding two FTs to A1.

When does A1's try end again?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ca_rumperee

Player A1 goes up for shot. Player B1 touches ball as it leaves hand. Player B1 then contacts player A1's arm/torso.

Fans/coaches/players all see the blocked shot very clearly. I see the contact after the blocked shot. I call foul on B1, awarding two FTs to A1.

When does A1's try end again?

In this case the try ends when it clearly will not be successful. That is with the block. However the act of shooting includes the airborne shooter. That player is considered in the act of shooting until one foot returns to the floor.

You should likely consider that the contact with the arm/torso should be substantial after the ball is blocked cleanly up top in order for you to have a foul. Many camp instructors where teaching 80% ball 20% player should be let go a few years ago. Something to think about.

[mbyron]

I agree with Nevada, though I'm not sure of the percentages. Participants around here expect a no-call when a shot is blocked, unless there is significant contact. I'm not sure how to quantify 'significant'.

[ca_rumperee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with Nevada, though I'm not sure of the percentages. Participants around here expect a no-call when a shot is blocked, unless there is significant contact. I'm not sure how to quantify 'significant'.

A couple of times I've had guys "swinging" or "chopping" an arm on these blocks, with a big motion. Makes that foul call easier.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with Nevada, though I'm not sure of the percentages. Participants around here expect a no-call when a shot is blocked, unless there is significant contact. I'm not sure how to quantify 'significant'.

Significant is the shooter being smacked in the face or knocked on his azz.

JMO.

[cmckenna]

It's important to watch what else the blocker is doing as well though, isn't it? I have seen many times where the defender uses a hand on the shooter to push himself up thus gaining an advantage or going in to the shooter hard with the body.

Everyone in the gym except us is looking at the ball so when a foul is called on this action it draws a lot of grief because all they see is the blocked shot.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by cmckenna

It's important to watch what else the blocker is doing as well though, isn't it? I have seen many times where the defender uses a hand on the shooter to push himself up thus gaining an advantage or going in to the shooter hard with the body.

Everyone in the gym except us is looking at the ball so when a foul is called on this action it draws a lot of grief because all they see is the blocked shot.

When the contact happens during the shot, ie before the ball leaves the hands, that's a much different scenario than what's being discussed here. In the kind of sitch you're discussing, you have to gauge how much contact there is, how legal that contact is, and the A/D, just as you would with any other contact. I tend to err on the side of "protect the shooter" although I was working last year on not being quite as protective. But you're right that whatever you do call will often not be seen by the crowd, so their reaction is not a good way to evaluate your call.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Significant is the shooter being smacked in the face or knocked on his azz.

JMO.

Had a situation last week where an airborne shooter had his (lay-up) shot blocked (out of bounds) hard and clean...the problem was that the blocker got the shooter's arm after the clean block.

I had a no call...the player came up and showed me the red mark on his arm as I was administering the throw-in.

I told him to turn around and walk away...quick. He did, and later apologized for "showing me up". I told him, "that's cool...and if you really got hit like that, I might have missed it."

Watta ya think?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Watta ya think?

Who knows? Without seeing it, it sounds like it might be a clean block followed by incidental contact.

[ca_rumperee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In this case the try ends when it clearly will not be successful. That is with the block. However the act of shooting includes the airborne shooter. That player is considered in the act of shooting until one foot returns to the floor.

You should likely consider that the contact with the arm/torso should be substantial after the ball is blocked cleanly up top in order for you to have a foul. Many camp instructors where teaching 80% ball 20% player should be let go a few years ago. Something to think about.

This helps a lot. Funny that I never got any insight on this during my training over the summer. It has just been a lingering question that I've been feeling my way through.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In this case the try ends when it clearly will not be successful. That is with the block. However the act of shooting includes the airborne shooter. That player is considered in the act of shooting until one foot returns to the floor.

You should likely consider that the contact with the arm/torso should be substantial after the ball is blocked cleanly up top in order for you to have a foul. Many camp instructors where teaching 80% ball 20% player should be let go a few years ago. Something to think about.

Rumpref : This is the first year,4th year reffing, that I have applied the 80/20 deal Nevada wrote about. The amount of grief that I get by no calling this-unless it's substantial-has been practically zero. The amount of complaining/grief I get for doing it the old way is in itself substantional.

How I learned to apply this new theory is I needed to swallow my whistle a little on blocked shots and pay attention to whats going on when I swallow my whistle. The feedback I got was amazing.

Now to address those who might say i should or shouldn't make calls based on the complaining/grief factor I agree. Just saying in this one area the results are noticeable...

Also Rumpref they just had a thread in the last couple of weeks on this-couldn't find it but it's relatively recent.

[ILRef80]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In this case the try ends when it clearly will not be successful. That is with the block. However the act of shooting includes the airborne shooter. That player is considered in the act of shooting until one foot returns to the floor.

So, what do you do in this situation. A1 goes up for a jump shot, B1 crashes into him, but just after A1 returns to the floor. I still have a shooting foul. Should this be a common foul?

Edit: Nevermind, on the situation I presented, I'm assuming there is no block, thus the try hasn't ended. So, no block - it's a shooting foul. Block followed by body (not simaltaneously) - common foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ILRef80

Edit: Nevermind, on the situation I presented, I'm assuming there is no block, thus the try hasn't ended. So, no block - it's a shooting foul. Block followed by body (not simaltaneously) - common foul.

Nope, wrong understanding of the applicable rules. The shot ended when the shot was blocked. The airborne shooter however is still a "shooter" until he lands. Block followed by illegal contact on an airborne shooter is a shooting foul.

[kblehman]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The airborne shooter however is still a "shooter" until he lands. Block followed by illegal contact on an airborne shooter is a shooting foul.

So if the shooter takes a set shot (never leaves the floor) and the shot is blocked cleanly, but the blocker lands on the shooter.... shooting foul or common foul?

Related question: we've all seen a defender run at a 3-pt shooter to harass the shot. The shot is gone when the defender arrives, so he turns around to box out the shooter and either hits him hard or gives him that nice buttsy, knocking the shooter down after the shot. Is it a no-call or a common foul?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by kblehman

So if the shooter takes a set shot (never leaves the floor) and the shot is blocked cleanly, but the blocker lands on the shooter.... shooting foul or common foul?

Related question: we've all seen a defender run at a 3-pt shooter to harass the shot. The shot is gone when the defender arrives, so he turns around to box out the shooter and either hits him hard or gives him that nice buttsy, knocking the shooter down after the shot. Is it a no-call or a common foul?

First, a set shooter who has completed his shooting motion is no longer a shooter.

On the related question - IMO it depends on both severity of contact and A/D. If the contact is severe and A1 would have been knocked to the court if he was standing normally, I have a call. If A1 is off-balance after the shot and falls to the floor on limited contact, no call unless the rebound comes that way and the contact by B1 was both illegal and prohibited A1 from having a chance to rebound.

It's a judgement any way you look at it.