rebound tap for goal

[eyezen]

NFHS

Situation - shot A1 - shot missed - rebound tap by A2 - A2 fouls B2

If the tap is made shall it count?

In NFHS does it matter the sequence?

[Raymond]

more details of the actual play you are envisioning, please.

[eyezen]

Sure!

A1 pulls up for a jumper from free throw line extended on the left side, shot is bricked with a long rebound towards the right side, A2 who is on the weakside on the right just inside the three point line takes two steps leaps and up high in the air from outside the paint taps the ball off the glass and in, meanwhile height challenged B2 is standing about at the block facing the basket watching the ball go over his head. A2 comes down on B2. The lead on the play calls a foul on A2.

NFHS Should the basket count?

[lpbreeze]

no me thinks

[Mark Padgett]

NF 4-41.6 "A tap shall be considered the same as a try for field goal..."

NF 4-41.7 "The tap starts when the player's hand(s) touches the ball."

Since a tap is the same as a try, ask yourself this to answer your question: would you disallow the points if it was a try and an airborne shooter came down on a player who had established position prior to the player leaving the floor? Since you said "A2 fouls B2", we have to assume B2 had position.

[Raymond]

Based on description:

NFHS (and NCAA-W): Player Control foul; no basket; Team B throw-in from designated spot on baseline.

NCAA-M: count the basket; common foul; penalize as follows--Team B throw-in (TF 1-6), B2 shoots 1+1 (TF 7-9); B2 shoots 2 free throws (TF 10+)

My question for NCAA-M: Would throw-in be anywhere along baseline or a designated spot throw-in?

[eyezen]

Mark:

That was the path I was thinking. I know the NCAA rule but I wasn't for sure in FED. Wouldn't you need to satisfy player control also? Does a tap for goal when no prior player/team control exists satisfy that?

[MadCityRef]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Mark:

That was the path I was thinking. I know the NCAA rule but I wasn't for sure in FED. Wouldn't you need to satisfy player control also? Does a tap for goal when no prior player/team control exists satisfy that?

You'd need to distinguish between a swipe at the ball and a tap that controls the ball. (Ball goes where the players wants.)

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My question for NCAA-M: Would throw-in be anywhere along baseline or a designated spot throw-in?

Designated spot closest to the foul.

[inigo montoya]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

NF 4-41.6 "A tap shall be considered the same as a try for field goal..."

NF 4-41.7 "The tap starts when the player's hand(s) touches the ball."

Since a tap is the same as a try, ask yourself this to answer your question: would you disallow the points if it was a try and an airborne shooter came down on a player who had established position prior to the player leaving the floor? Since you said "A2 fouls B2", we have to assume B2 had position.

Situation from last night (NFHS, 8th grade boys):
A1 tries for goal, but the shot is no good. A2 leaps straight up in an attempt to rebound or tap it in. He is fouled on the way up, but succeeds in tapping it in. The contact occurs before he makes contact with the ball.

Since a tap does not start until A2 makes contact with the ball, I said this should be a common foul. My partner says "it's a shooting foul, basket is good, A2 will shoot one free throw."

Actually, what really happened was more complex/dumb, but this is the gist of it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by inigo montoya

Situation from last night (NFHS, 8th grade boys):
A1 tries for goal, but the shot is no good. A2 leaps straight up in an attempt to rebound or tap it in. He is fouled on the way up, but succeeds in tapping it in. The contact occurs before he makes contact with the ball.

Since a tap does not start until A2 makes contact with the ball, I said this should be a common foul. My partner says "it's a shooting foul, basket is good, A2 will shoot one free throw."

You had it right. It's just a common foul. Was the player in the act of shooting when he was fouled? Nope. You can't be in the act of shooting if you don't have the ball.

Ask your partner if a player was fouled before he caught a pass, then caught the pass and shot, if he'd call that a shooting foul too. There ain't no difference, rules wise.

[BillyMac]

What may be confusing some, is that many years ago, I'm going to guess more than twenty years go, a tap, and a try, were not considered the same by the NFHS. In some cases, a player could tap the ball toward the basket, get fouled in the act of tapping, and either not get fouls shots, getting the ball at the closest designated spot, or, if in the bonus, getting a one and one.

I'm sure one of our veteran Forum posters can tell us when this change was made.

I've always been pleased with this change. It makes it a lot easier to treat the tap the same as a try, except, of course, when there's 0.3 or less seconds on the clock.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Mark:

That was the path I was thinking. I know the NCAA rule but I wasn't for sure in FED. Wouldn't you need to satisfy player control also? Does a tap for goal when no prior player/team control exists satisfy that?

Player control has nothing to do with this. The "airborne shooter" rule has everything to do with this.

You can have a PC foul by an airborne shooter even though the shooter does not have PC.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What may be confusing some, is that many years ago, I'm going to guess more than twenty years go, a tap, and a try, were not considered the same by the NFHS. In some cases, a player could tap the ball toward the basket, get fouled in the act of tapping, and either not get fouls shots, getting the ball at the closest designated spot, or, if in the bonus, getting a one and one.

I'm sure one of our veteran Forum posters can tell us when this change was made.

At one time they musta put an IAABO guy on the Rules Committee because they put in a completely dumb rule for a year or two....back in the 70's iirc The interpretation, as Billy said, was that a "tap" wasn't a "try".

They issued case plays telling us how to judge the difference between a tap and a try. If, on a put-back, the ball came to rest in a player's hand(s), it was a try. If it didn't come to rest (a la volleyball) it was a tap. Straight judgment call iow.

Stoopid rule. They finally found some common sense(either that or they got rid of IAABO Guy ) and they got rid of that l'il gem. Of course, they almost got me killed first. Doing a regional varsity game.....team with the ball down by 1 at the end..... one player misses a shot and a teammate goes up and taps the rebound.....ball is in the air....horn sounds......ball goes in....home team crowd (naturally it had to be the home team) goes nuts......JR waves the basket off because it was a "tap" and not a "try", and therefore the ball was dead when a whistle or the horn sounded......home crowd goes nuts again.....JR now sets new land speed record getting his azz outa the gym and into his dressing room.

Stoopid rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

At one time they musta put an IAABO guy on the Rules Committee because they put in a completely dumb rule for a year or two....back in the 70's iirc The interpretation, as Billy said, was that a "tap" wasn't a "try". Of course, they almost got me killed first. Doing a regional varsity game.....team with the ball down by 1 at the end..... one player misses a shot and a teammate goes up and taps the rebound.....ball is in the air....horn sounds......ball goes in....home team crowd (naturally it had to be the home team) goes nuts......JR waves the basket off because it was a "tap" and not a "try", and therefore the ball was dead when a whistle or the horn sounded......home crowd goes nuts again.....JR now sets new land speed record getting his azz outa the gym and into his dressing room.

Jurassic Referee: I had completely forgotten about the tap and horn situation. Another good reason for the NFHS to make the tap and the try the same (except for 0.3 seconds). Your post states "a completely dumb rule for a year or two, back in the 70's", which seems to indicate that it was only in place for a few years, in other words, at one point a tap and a try were the same, then they weren't, and then they were the same again, as the present rule states. I must have entered officiating during this middle phase, because I only remember the last two parts of the equation. I started officiating around 1980.