What call would you make?
 

Situation one: A1 attempting a three point shot, and is basically run over by B1 who is attempting to block the shot. What would I call if 1. the ball has left the shooters hands, but has not contacted the goal yet when contact was made. 2. the ball has left the shooters hands, and the basket has already been made, or missed when the contact occurs.
Thank you

Whether or not the ball has reached the goal is not germaine to this situation.

(And it's not Michael, Jackie, Tito, or Randy either :D )

We would obviously need more information, such as was it a jump shot, was the shooter in the air or touching the floor when this contact occurred.

With more info we would review Rule 4.1 on Airborne Shooter.

By rule, the shooter is no longer airborne once the foot contacts the floor. Your ruling should be based upon that fact rather than the location of the ball.

If the shooter was still in the air, it's an illegal chop block. If the shooter had already returned to the ground, it's a technical for icing or possibly a balk.

See what happens when I can't find my meds. :o

Sorry for the lack of information. The shooter has already returned to the floor when contact is made

Now you have made it easy for yourself to rule correctly. Is the player in the act of shooting after they land?

Well then, if you judge that the contact put A1 at a disadvantage then you blow the whistle for a common foul and put the ball OOB, shoot 1+1 (fouls 7-9), or shoot double bonus (10+ fouls).

Now, to be nit-picky, it would make a difference if the ball has already gone through the net on a successful try. If the contact happens before it is at Team B's disposal then you could have a techninal foul if you determine the contact is intentional or flagrant.

1. If the shooter has landed prior to contact, he's no longer a shooter, and this is a common foul.

2a. If the basket is made prior to contact, it should be ignored unless it's intentional or flagrant (in which case the correct call would be the appropriate technical foul).

2b. If the basket is clearly missed prior to the foul, then the answer is the same as #1.

Thank you for your help, it is great for me to be able to go to this forum, and get good information. I just want to be a better official....
Take care,
Mark
Huntsville, Texas

As long as the ball is not at Team B's disposal (such as if the ball is grabbed immediately as it comes through net by Team B).

Sorry RANCHMAN but you'll have to relocate to SoCal in order to do that :D

Regarding #2...If B1 runs over A1 after a 3-point shot is actually made, that is a really late contact. If B1 is still coming at A1 that aggressivly after the shot is that far gone, you might consider an intentional. I'd certainly call a minimum of a common foul if only because the contact as described sound like rough play.

My thoughts also...if it's a 3-pointer and had already gone in, that's a long time that has passed to now be running into a player and knocking them down. :eek: I'm thinking that's gotta be called.

When the ball is at the disposal, the five second count should begin. The ball essentially becomes live when the five second count starts.
If you're starting your count that early, ok, but I don't start my count until the thrower has it out of bounds.

I agree with Camron.

You've been talking to Member Dan again, haven't you!

He asked me to help him return to "esteemed" status. I told him to talk to you. Then he told me to STFU.

Go figure.

There's an inside joke in this thread somewhere. I just know it!

After I thought about it some more, I realized that the made shot implies that the ball is dead (no way the shooter is going to float in the air as long as the ball). This leads to the fact that, technically, only a intentional foul (or flagrant) could be called...which, being a dead ball, makes it a T. That said, I could understand someone fudging the relative timing a bit to call a common foul or live ball intentional instead of a T....but could also understand the T.

Doing so would be very poor in my opinion. Have the courage to make the correct call and enforce the proper penalty for the negative act that the player committed.

Anything else is really unacceptable. :(

This may or may not be one of those times but every once in a while, the right call is not the correct call. Sometimes, just sometimes, the call needs ot fit the act.

Many officials have expressed similar thoughts, so I'm not trying to target you specifically here, but that kind of double-speak is not only unhelpful, but also counterproductive as it only serves as a way to rationalize not making the tough call.
The truth is that the right call and the correct call are always one and the same. They are in fact precisely what the NFHS rules book prescribes.

Yep, and that couldn't be more true in this case. In an instance such as this in which a player recklessly runs into an opposing shooter so long after the release of the ball that it has actually passed completely through the basket, the harsh penalty of a technical foul for the unneccessary and late, deadball contact is fully appropriate.

Officials who don't properly to penalize such contact are failing to put an end to the rough play that currently plagues the game. The stern penalties are designed to get the players to change their overly physical tactics and instead contest the game with grace and skill.

I would encourage all officials to be strong and do as the NFHS continues to urge in a POE concerning rough play that is published year after year--CLEAN UP THE GAME!

If you have to watch video tape to determine if the ball was dead or not by milliseconds so that you can call an technical foul (over a common or shooting foul), then you have more problems than trying to get a call right.

This is not about rough play or any POE. This is about not looking for crap because you will find it. This is why you keep hearing “call the obvious.”

Peace

Actually, it is about not shirking your responsibility and leaving a mess for someone else to clean up.

And what mess would that be? A debate over if you actually made the right call or not by splitting hairs? Most of us are not working games with High-Definition video or even good camera angles on the tape of our games. The only messes I see is going to need cleaning up are answers to why you ejected a coach for calling something you cannot prove.

Peace

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...images/wtf.gif

As usual this poster comes along and adds extra criteria to the situation and twists the elements of the play under discussion to suit his views.

What extra is he adding? All Jeff is saying is if it's close don't make the unexpected call. Camron is saying even if it's not close don't make the unexpected call. Two different plays that are both within the scope of the original discussion.

FWIW, I doubt I'm going to make an unexpected call here either. Maybe I can envision some 3rd world scenario where a dead ball contact T is needed instead of a common foul. But as I said, it's probably gonna be a play that occurs outside of the normal physics of basketball and it has got to be really obvious so I really don't think it's worth debating. Unless of course you normally work games that do not obey the usual laws of basketball physics.

There is a simple answer.
 

Dan,

It is simply the fact that I made a point. He cannot handle anything I say no matter what it is about or how the point of view is framed.

Peace

It's boils down to understanding the difference between the rules and the game. The rules are a framework in which the game is to be played, comprehending most situations but not all. When something happens outside the intended framework of the rules, the enforcement may also be outside the typical framework of the rules.