Contact after the try
 

A1 drives on a fast break, he goes airborne. 2 defenders on his heels, they go airborne with him.
I'm the lead official, I don't see any contact. As the try fails, all 3 players crash to the floor.
A1 hurts his arm, I'm guessing on the contact with the floor.
There may have been contact on the crash to the floor.
So my question is should I have Called a foul on the contact following the try.

Was the shooter still airbo(u)rne when contact occurred?
Did the contact on the shooter contribute to his fall?
As an aside, how do you know the try failed? (Were you ballwatching?)

A1 was airborne, so a shooting foul committed against A1 can be called for contact resulting before A1 has their first foot back on the ground.

This play exhibits the necessity to continue to watch the players, and nothing else. It's similar to a field judge in football watching only the players' actions as the ball comes down, because he knows it will come down! (The apple discovery proves it! :p)

After a player has released the ball, I allow more contact (not a lot more though) on the arm, because the arm usually isn't used to land. If I'm certain that A1 would have had to use his arm to land safely, and his arm is whacked out of position and A1 now lands awkwardly, I've got a foul.

Is this a break away and you are trailing? are you along side it ? or in front of it?

here is the issue, you were watching the ball and not the play. first and formost your resposibility is play below the rim and the shooter until he returns to the floor.
your partners trail and center have the responsibility of play above the rim on this.

once the player landed the try is over what foul do you call? the other two players may have only gone to the floor as a result of tripping over the out of control player who fell down?

If you didn't see it you can not guess on it, and what if the shot went in the ball is now dead, what do you call there?

JR nailed this with respect to following the shooter until they return to the floor for sure and possibly longer so that you know why you have three bodies on the floor.

The other thing is you can not go around making up calls just because there are three bodies on the floor, if you don't know how they got there.
you are going to take some grief on this situation most likely anyway, because people believe that when their are three bodies on the floor their had to be a foul. So get it right and know how they got there.

Had a play in a 2-man game. I'm T and player drives to the basket on my side. Initially I can see between A1 and B1. B1 gets his hand on the ball as A1 is raising it and I see no contact. From my angle all I see next is the ball coming loose and rolling OOB with A1, B1, and B2 (B1 runs into B2) crashing to the floor. The Lead can see the entire play from his angle. He blows his whistle and indicates A's possession. A1 is still on the floor and obviously hurt. I beckon A's HC who too busy complaining to me that there was no call to actually check on his player. Finally he waves his trainer on who is accompanied by B's trainer. A1 sits up and he has blood pouring from his face (nose or lip, I couldn't tell). Of course now HC is really agitated. I explain to him that I didn't see any contact and I wasn't going to guess. While A1 is still being attended to I ask my partner if I missed something. He said he didn't see a foul otherwise he would have obviously called a foul instead of OOB. He then says that A1 said he hit face on the ground when he landed.

So I was right in not guessing.

I might even tell the coach this.

Juggs:

Are you sure you want to admit that you allow an airborne shooter to be fouled and not call the foul?

MTD, Sr.

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

It would not be hard to justify a foul to the coach since all three players (1 Off and His 2 Def) are lying on the floor.

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?

M&M has my answer pretty well said.

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? :D

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.

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.

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.

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 :cool:), 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):rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.