Contact after the try

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Yup. Contact on the arm after a shot was taken can be incidental contact. If it doesn't affect his landing, rebounding position, etc...

Juggs:

Are you telling me that if you go up to shoot the ball and I swipe at the ball and miss the ball but hit your shooting arm after you have released the shot, that I have not fouled you?

MTD, Sr.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Juggs:

Are you telling me that if you go up to shoot the ball and I swipe at the ball and miss the ball but hit your shooting arm after you have released the shot, that I have not fouled you?

MTD, Sr.

I'm not Juggs, (and I'm not even sure I know how to play him on TV), but my answer would be: it depends.

Did the contact put the shooter at a disadvantage? Or, did the contact put the defender at an unfair advantage? If not, then nope. I think his point was the same level of contact on a shooter's arm that would affect the shot while the ball is still in the shooter's hand could very well be considered incidental once the ball has left the hand. Many times, but not always.

Does that answer your question?

[JugglingReferee]

M&M has my answer pretty well said.

[M&M Guy]

Oops, sorry - didn't mean to jump in there for you. I thought you left.

Does that mean I get the part when they do your life story on one of them made-for-TV movies?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Oops, sorry - didn't mean to jump in there for you. I thought you left.

Does that mean I get the part when they do your life story on one of them made-for-TV movies?

Sure. LOL I'll tell the casting director that you can pick your own leading lady too. Myself, I'm partial to redheads.

Actually, I did leave - had dinner. Since I missed out yesterday, I had pancakes today.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Did the contact put the shooter at a disadvantage?

IMO, this is not a simple as you put it. You and Juggs appear very experienced and I am sure your judgement is very good on these plays. I also recognize that you say contact can be incidental which means that it may also be a foul. But I don't believe you can only consider the contact.

I think it is necessary to consider the action of the defender, prior to the contact, to determine if it is a foul. If the defender comes from a long way away, aggressively, with little concern about injuring the shooter (should contact be considerable) and flailing arms everywhere, I will call a foul when contact is made after the shot has been released. Even if the actual contact did not create a disadvantage on the shot (the actions of the defender could not be completed without contact.)

As in the OP, if the two defenders chasing the shooter were bearing down with reckless abandon, causing the shooter to fear injury, I think any contact would likely be a foul.

I am not sure if I am making my point, but I think there is more to this judgement than whether or not the actual contact created a disadvantage.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

But I don't believe you can only consider the contact.

I think it is necessary to consider the action of the defender, prior to the contact, to determine if it is a foul. If the defender comes from a long way away, aggressively, with little concern about injuring the shooter (should contact be considerable) and flailing arms everywhere, I will call a foul when contact is made after the shot has been released.

An out of control defender would be a diferent situation and the contact would usually be significant - therefore having an effect on the shot or be a foul in and of itself after the try.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

As in the OP, if the two defenders chasing the shooter were bearing down with reckless abandon, causing the shooter to fear injury, I think any contact would likely be a foul.

Be careful there -

A1 is driving to the basket on a breakaway with B1 chasing him as fast as his little legs can carry him and screaming like a crazed Banshee (no offense to the Banshee’s in the crowd ), as A1 goes up weakly (kind of stops and fades away) for the shot B1 goes up too with all the fervor and noise he can create, and they just graze uniforms or lightly brush bodies, are we going to call that foul because B1 defended the basket like a Tasmanian Devil?
NO - the shooter didn't go to the basket strong - the contact was minimal - and the defender's crazed antics had their desired effect. Little Johnny got scared and timidly went to the basket and missed the shot. (Let’s not bring up a possible delay of game T for having to clean the liquid off the floor)

Same scenario and Johnny goes to the basket strongly and the same contact is made by the Taz, one would be more inclined to make this call, but minimal contact could still be ruled as incidental.

Now if Johnny goes to the basket and gets wiped out by the Taz after the try, we have a foul - and depending on the severity we could have an intentional or flagrant - or worse if the ball is dead.
But Johnny still has to go to the basket strong and under control to get a call on the try, what happens afterward is what happens afterward and needs to be judged on that basis.

If A1 is shooting a fade away shot and gets hit, I believe that most officials are less likely to call the foul on minimal contact than they would be if A1 is going strong to the basket. As most officials are less likely to bail little Johnny out if he went to the basket out of control and throws up a prayer when he foresees the possibility of any contact coming and that contact turns out to minimal.

The point is you have to consider all of the play and as M&M and JR commented minimal contact that did not affect the try can be considered incidental and need not be called.

[Daryl H. Long]

Guys,

Lets not let this digress into something it is not.

Juggs was very clear in his first answer that he understands the pertinint rules in this sitch...airborn shooter, act of shooting, try, etc.

Juggs alluded to Rule 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 which is very clear in defining airborn shooter. It also says that until he comes back down he is still in the act of shooting. (Remember, airborn shooter in NF rules is basically an exception. See 4-41-1, 4-19-1, 4-19-6, and 4-12-1. I will leave it to you to study.)

This means that if contact occurs (even after ball has clearly left A1 hand) then A1 has been fouled in the act of shooting and he will get appropriate number of free throws by rule.

In answer to Mark's questions I do not believe Juggs (nor M&M) is denying it could be a foul, just that he will evaluate the contact as it respects the outcome of the play. Not all contact is a foul. We all make those value judgement in every game we officiate, and the best officials are those who have learned when a no-call on the play is appropriate.

[Daryl H. Long]

To further show why a good knowledge of definitions is essential.

The sitch is titled: Contact after the try.

There is a whole 'nuther set of rules as to when a try ends. The ball could be dead...it could be alive. Lots of scenarios could occur.

The end of player control, the end of team control, the end of a try, the end of the act of shooting by airborn player, the end of act of shooting by player on the floor are not all simultaneous.