Non airbourne shooter?
 

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.

You are? :)

I do not rule this as a shooting foul.

Please explain what I am missing. I don't believe this should be a shooting foul but time and time again I see this called a shooting foul. The act of shooting end when the ball leaves the hand correct?

Correct. My ruling is the same as yours.

Good situation! I never would have thought about a set shot! The foul is not a shooting foul.

-Josh

I asked a veteran in our association about this. He called a shooting foul on a push after the shooter returned to the floor (so, like the OP, called a shooting foul where one shouldn't have been called).

He said, "If you want to call it that way, but I'm not going to. Nobody complained when we shot free throws."

I told another veteran about it, and he rolled his eyes. "And X wonders why he doesn't get any good varsity games."

Not all advice from veterans is equally good.

Airbourne Identity, one of my favorite movies

Yer not missing anything.
 

Its just one of the CMRs: Commonly Misapplied Rules. I know you know others, like "travel" when player lifts pivot foot, "jump ball" when floor-bound shooter is unable to release a shot because defender has hand on the ball, "travel" when a running player bats the ball a few times but never possesses it, "travel" when a player dribbling the ball falls down, et cetera, et cetera.

4-4-1 An Airborne Shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.

Side note: This would be pretty funny if some guy named Jason started this thread.

I think it depends on the contact involved here. You cant just crash into a player right? So you are saying it would just be a common foul if contact is so hard it cant be ignored, no shots?~~~

More specifics are needed.

1. If the ball is dead (such as having already gone through the basket), contact must be either intentional or flagrant; or it should be ignored.

2. If the ball is still live, but the shooter has already landed prior to "crashing" into the defender, you would have a common foul; free throws to be shot if bonus is in effect.

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).

Players perspective
 

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, 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

Player goes up, shoots, ball goes through the basket, and THEN the player comes down and makes contact? Wow, he was up there a long time!