Greetings from Alaska. fouled on the shot
 

Hello all. I just stumbled on to this forum and enjoyed the discusions. Had a situation I wanted to get some feed back on. A1 is going up for a shot. (started the motion) and is fouled by B1. As B1 contacts A1 the ball is knocked loose. while still in the air A1 taps the ball up and In the basket. I saw this play in a game and the officials counted the basket to start with but then the coach had a discussion with them and they took away the basket and gave A1 two shots. I haven't found a case play situation like this or a specific rule. Personaly I would have counted the basket and given one free throw. Any thoughts would be great. I am a official in the Anchorage Sports Officials Association. Have been for three years. I have called ball since i graduated high school in 92. Love the game and look forward to calling the it for years to come. Always ready to learn!!!

Welcome to the forum.

There is an argument to be made that the basket shouldn't count because the initial try was not successful, and the 2nd try (tap) started after the foul.

What's the argument for the other way?

I agree. 4-41-4 says: "The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead".

Seems to me that the first throw was unsuccessful so the try ended and the ball was then dead because of the foul.

That the release of the ball and subsequent tap was all part of the same try.

Not saying I agree with it, but that would be the argument for counting the basket. ;)

It's a really cool play. :)

Wasilla, Ak???

As in the home of former mayor and current Gov. Sarah Palin?

Yes THE Wasilla. my thoughts were that his shooting motion had not been completed as he was still airborn. Say he wasn't fouled and the sae play occured. As he ent up for the shot he lost control but was able to tap it in before he came back down.

The shot can be over before the airborne shooter returns to the floor.
Consider this play:

A1 jumps for shot, gets fouled. The ball goes up and comes down to A1 prior to A1 landing. A1 bats the ball back up. Two completely different shots; second one does not count.

what if he got fouled after losing control but before the tap is this a try since he lost control???

I appreciate that point. I guess we need to decide if it is part of the original shot movement. Any rule thoughts come to mind? I thought u could argue it either way, but usually their is a right and wrong. Notice I said usually.

zm nails the rule reference above.

+1

The 1st Commandment of basketball officiating: Thou shalt know thy definitions. ;)

Welcome to the forum, AKOFL.
Very good sitch!

For me, the second shot never happened.

I am having a hard time coming up with any scenario where the shooter's deliberate contacting of the ball after releasing it for a try isn't part of a new play: a rebound, putback or another shot attempt.

Any more situations would be beating a dead horse I think. I really loved that horse 2. If B1 holds the shooting arm from going up but A1 fights his way through to continue, he gets the bucket. Just because the ball comes loose a bit in that situation he looses the basket. that's a hard one to handle. It's not my 2 points though.Ha That's one dead horse!!!

Did this game involve the Mavericks? :D

which mavericks?

Well, you could always let the kid have the bucket on the second effort and pass on the foul. ;)

The player could be considered an airborne shooter if the official deems that he was originally trying for goal prior to losing control of the ball. That would mean that the foul entitles him to two FTs.

However, the tap had not yet begun at the time of the foul, so it cannot be considered in the play and any goal scored because of it would not count.

4-41-7 . . .

You betcha. ;)

Still unclear which team that is. better yet who is this:D:D

Bitsy,
Not the same, but there was something close in an NBA Championship game.
Can you picture a Michael Jordan highlight against the Pistons. [They showed it a lot over the years.]

MJ drives the middle of lane and goes up with his right...
He is fouled while holding the ball...
Still hanging, MJ switches the ball to his left...
He scores and then goes to the line.

:)

Hint: A lot of folks bought the maverick game ticket. :cool:

I'm retarded. still don't get it. :confused:

"Maverick" was a word thrown around quite a bit over the last few months, whilst your Governor was traveling the country. . . :)

The Republicans haven't won a presidential election without having someone named either "Bush" or "Nixon" on the ticket since 1928!



And your point is??

To me it's an interesting bit of trivia.

Palin and Jeb Bush in '12?

Thats a different play. MJ never lost control so is allowed the continuation. In the original play the player lost control.

Yeah.
That's what I meant by "not the same...." ;)

The Bulls wouldn't play the Pistons in the NBA Championship as they are both in the Eastern Conference.

However, the play you refer to did happen in the NBA Finals against the Lakers. And he didn't get fouled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT1yNyRwd7w

But hey, otherwise spot on! :)

I believe you are correct and that I kicked another one. :cool:
Thanks, PA Coach!

To me it's politics which doesn't belong here.

Then how do you feel about references to specific religions?

As a 'comical' tag line? No.

In case you haven't noticed, Padgett often has no point.

Nice!!!!!

I expect a rebuttal to the above, but it probably won't have a point, either.

I'm with fullor on this, for the record. Unless the moderators want to open this board up to political discussion....

I disagree. Mark's his tag line professes no political leaning. It simply states a fact.

You've never seen the top of my head. :D

Hmmm....

Over-moderating, or under-moderating... http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ae...smiley-006.gif.

Bull _ _ _ _

We don't need implied political leanings here, there are plenty of sites for that.

Only two presidents to be impeached were democrats, Andrew Jackson and William Jefferson Clinton. Just a fact.

Just like officiating, Mick. You can only please 50% of the people, 50% of the time...on a good day. :D

wwe have a bunch of comp teams called the mavericks thus my confusion. Not big into the politics thing. I do reff some of the Govna's kids on occasion. Good people.

Incorrect....Andrew JOHNSON....and Johnson was a Republican.

Correct on Johnson and his party affiliation is debatable.

Nixon probably would have fallen in that group but he ....resigned before he could be impeached.

He was Lincoln's vice president. Was Lincoln's party affiliation debatable too?