Non airbourne shooter?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by wbrown

I have seen this called several times but I think the call is incorrect.

A1 take a set shot, looks like a jump shot but never leave his feet. B1 attempts to block the shot and on the follow through lands on A1. The ball is clearly gone prior to contact. The shot is missed. Neither team is in the bonus.

The referee awards A1 two shots.

I know an airborne shooter is protected but this is not an airborne shooter.

I am missing something.

I have seldom seen (other than in black and white films from the 1950s and early 1960s) players truly take a set shot -- i.e. a shot without jumping at all. From the 3rd grade through college, players nearly always jump on shots -- there are times when some players don't jump at all, but that is not common from what I have seen. They may use the jump to help propel the ball as opposed to using the jump to elevate prior to shooting the ball, but they are jumping nonetheless.

If there is a question as to whether the shooter has landed, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter and this becomes a shooting foul. If the player has landed and is hit on the follow-through by a crashing defender, the foul will be a common foul on the non-shooter (only shooting if in the bonus).

If the player truly doesn't jump and the ball is clearly away, the "act of shooting" has completed. Any foul that occurs after that point should not result in the penalty for being fouled in said "act of shooting" (i.e. 2 or 3 shots regardless of the team foul count in that particular half).

[hoopguy]

I realize by rule what you are all saying is correct. Once the player has landed and the shot has left the hand, it should no longer be a shooting foul.

But.. From the players perspective possibly there should be more leeway. Players are all taught that part of the shot is the follow through, continue to hold your hand up until the ball hits something. So to me there is a grey area where the player may have landed but is still involved in the shot. I realize that by rule this is not the case and should not be called this way but this may be why it is not always called exactly as the rule states.

edit;

Last night I was watching the Florida-LSU game and witnessed Florida guard Calathis get fouled after a 3 point shot. In my opinion the shot had left his hand and his feet were on the floor. It was called a shooting foul and he was awarded 3 free throws. In my opinion, this is very common on most fouls agains a 3 point shooter in DI mens basketball. The ball has left the shooters hand and the shooter has landed and the opponent then hits the shooter. The top officials(the ones who ref DI mens) in our game often do not follow the rule exactly as written. They award the player 3 shots or 1 if the shot went in. It may be the wrong move on this forum but it seems to be the right call if you want the DI assigners to give you games.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

I realize by rule what you are all saying is correct. Once the player has landed and the shot has left the hand, it should no longer be a shooting foul.

But.. From the players perspective possibly there should be more leeway. Players are all taught that part of the shot is the follow through, continue to hold your hand up until the ball hits something. So to me there is a grey area where the player may have landed but is still involved in the shot. I realize that by rule this is not the case and should not be called this way but this may be why it is not always called exactly as the rule states.

If, as officials, we had to determine when the players follow through ended, officiating would be more of a mess than it already is in certain circumstances. I personally think that the airborne shooter rule is definitive and concise. I wouldn't want to add more judgment into the game.

-Josh

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

I realize by rule what you are all saying is correct. Once the player has landed and the shot has left the hand, it should no longer be a shooting foul.

But.. From the players perspective possibly there should be more leeway. Players are all taught that part of the shot is the follow through, continue to hold your hand up until the ball hits something. So to me there is a grey area where the player may have landed but is still involved in the shot. I realize that by rule this is not the case and should not be called this way but this may be why it is not always called exactly as the rule states.

edit;

Last night I was watching the Florida-LSU game and witnessed Florida guard Calathis get fouled after a 3 point shot. In my opinion the shot had left his hand and his feet were on the floor. It was called a shooting foul and he was awarded 3 free throws. In my opinion, this is very common on most fouls agains a 3 point shooter in DI mens basketball. The ball has left the shooters hand and the shooter has landed and the opponent then hits the shooter. The top officials(the ones who ref DI mens) in our game often do not follow the rule exactly as written. They award the player 3 shots or 1 if the shot went in. It may be the wrong move on this forum but it seems to be the right call if you want the DI assigners to give you games.

If it's close (the landing), most will give the benefit to the shooting foul. If the shooter clearly lands prior to contact, they will not. Was the FL-LSU play close? It's also possible they just missed a call. I've called plenty of "after the shot" fouls.

The close ones usually happen on three point shots, when the defender is attempting to box out the shooter. Instead of boxing out, they clear the shooter out and it's sometimes a tough decision on whether contact was made prior to the shooter landing.

"Follow through" couldn't be more irrelevant. We don't officiate to coaching technique.