That went in???

[WreckRef]

Ok, I had the strangest foul the other night in a men's league game.

A1 shoots the ball, A2 goes to tap the rebound into the basket from about 8 feet. While he's attempting the try, B2 smacks A2 on the arm so hard it forces his arm forward and actually helps him (yes, helps him) in making the basket from about 8 feet away from the rim.

I call the foul, see the ball go in (in complete disbelief because it was a line drive, think Clyde Drexler), report the foul and when I say, "Count the basket" everybody looks at me (with a WTF look) because nobody realized it went in other than me.

Just wondering if anybody else has had strange/odd baskets where the defender helped the offense to score.

[JugglingReferee]

Yes, I've had attempts that in my opinion, the penalized contact helped the ball go in. From an unlikely basket to an old-fashioned trey.

I don't bother remembering these situations past 24 hours, so I couldn't tell you any details, though.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

Ok, I had the strangest foul the other night in a men's league game.

A1 shoots the ball, A2 goes to tap the rebound into the basket from about 8 feet. While he's attempting the try, B2 smacks A2 on the arm so hard it forces his arm forward and actually helps him (yes, helps him) in making the basket from about 8 feet away from the rim.

I call the foul, see the ball go in (in complete disbelief because it was a line drive, think Clyde Drexler), report the foul and when I say, "Count the basket" everybody looks at me (with a WTF look) because nobody realized it went in other than me.

Just wondering if anybody else has had strange/odd baskets where the defender helped the offense to score.

The act of tapping begins when the player makes contact with the ball. Therefore, if the foul occurred before the tapper touched the ball, then not only should you have NOT counted the goal, but you wouldn't even award FTs (unless bonus) as the foul wasn't during the act of shooting.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The act of tapping begins when the player makes contact with the ball. Therefore, if the foul occurred before the tapper touched the ball, then not only should you have NOT counted the goal, but you wouldn't even award FTs (unless bonus) as the foul wasn't during the act of shooting.

So durring the tap and after you will shoot? I was looking at this the other day and was wondering. Didn't see the X factor for shooting or not.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

So durring the tap and after you will shoot? I was looking at this the other day and was wondering. Didn't see the X factor for shooting or not.

Rule 4
Section 41
ART. 5 . . . A tap for goal is the contacting of the ball with any part of a player’s
hand(s) in an attempt to direct the ball into his/her basket.
ART. 6 . . . A tap shall be considered the same as a try for field goal, except as
in 5-2-5.
ART. 7 . . . The tap starts when the player’s hand(s) touches the ball.
ART. 8 . . . The tap ends in exactly the same manner as a try.

CONTINUOUS MOTION
6.7 COMMENT: If an opponent fouls after A1 has started to throw for goal, A1
is permitted to complete the customary arm movement; and, if A1 is pivoting or
stepping when A1 or a teammate is fouled, A1 may complete the usual foot or
body movement in any activity, as long as A1 is still holding the ball. If A1 starts
a dribble, the “continuous motion” immediately ends. These privileges are
granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs.
The continuous-motion rule applies to a free-throw try as well as to a field-goal
try or tap for goal. However, in a tap for goal, the motion does not begin until the
ball is touched.
The “continuous-motion” provision does not apply to batting or tipping the ball
during rebounding or a jump ball. In these cases, A1 is not considered as being
in the act of trying or tapping for goal. If an opponent commits a foul during this
type of action before the ball is in flight, the foul causes the ball to become dead
immediately.

6.7.7 SITUATION: As the hand of A1 contacts the ball to tap it toward Team A’s
basket, B1 fouls A1. The ball definitely is not airborne from the hand of A1 when
the contact occurs, but the tapped ball goes into the basket. RULING: The foul
does not cause the ball to become dead immediately. The subsequent tap of the
ball results in a goal, the same as a try for goal. The foul is penalized the same as
being fouled in the act of shooting. Continuous motion does apply to a tap. (4-
11; 4-41-2, 5)

[WreckRef]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

Ok, I had the strangest foul the other night in a men's league game.

A1 shoots the ball, A2 goes to tap the rebound into the basket from about 8 feet. While he's attempting the try, B2 smacks A2 on the arm so hard it forces his arm forward and actually helps him (yes, helps him) in making the basket from about 8 feet away from the rim.

I call the foul, see the ball go in (in complete disbelief because it was a line drive, think Clyde Drexler), report the foul and when I say, "Count the basket" everybody looks at me (with a WTF look) because nobody realized it went in other than me.

Just wondering if anybody else has had strange/odd baskets where the defender helped the offense to score.

Nevada, I think you misread my OP. If not and you are still convinced I shouldn't have counted the basket or awarded FT's I am interested to see why. Not trying to be a smart @ss, just trying to understand what you are saying. Or maybe I should have explained it a little better by saying that as soon as the ball is touched by A2 he gets hit from behind by B2.

[26 Year Gap]

Back in the old days, a tap was not considered a try.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

Ok, I had the strangest foul the other night in a men's league game.

A1 shoots the ball, A2 goes to tap the rebound into the basket from about 8 feet. While he's attempting the try, B2 smacks A2 on the arm so hard it forces his arm forward and actually helps him (yes, helps him) in making the basket from about 8 feet away from the rim.

I call the foul, see the ball go in (in complete disbelief because it was a line drive, think Clyde Drexler), report the foul and when I say, "Count the basket" everybody looks at me (with a WTF look) because nobody realized it went in other than me.

Just wondering if anybody else has had strange/odd baskets where the defender helped the offense to score.

Sounds to me like the defender was contacting the tapper's arm while the tapper was touching the ball....good call. Even if the contact began before the tapper touched the ball, I'd still call it a shooting foul if the contact was still in progress when the tapper made contact with the ball....the initial contact doesn't have to be the actual point of the foul.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

Ok, I had the strangest foul the other night in a men's league game.

The strangest foul in a men's league game would be one which nobody complained about.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

Nevada, I think you misread my OP. If not and you are still convinced I shouldn't have counted the basket or awarded FT's I am interested to see why. Not trying to be a smart @ss, just trying to understand what you are saying. Or maybe I should have explained it a little better by saying that as soon as the ball is touched by A2 he gets hit from behind by B2.

I took your OP to mean that the player went for the ball, but had not yet contacted it with his tapping motion when the defender fouled him and that forced his arm forward and into the ball. As I noted above, that foul occurs PRIOR to the act of shooting and the goal cannot be counted nor can FTs be awarded, other than for the bonus.
However, if the tapper had already reached the ball and made contact with it, then you handled it correctly.
Either you need to convey your meaning better in written words or I need to decipher it better when reading them.
Anyway, I hope that my prior post was helpful and instructive should such a situation arise in one of your games.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sounds to me like the defender was contacting the tapper's arm while the tapper was touching the ball....good call. Even if the contact began before the tapper touched the ball, I'd still call it a shooting foul if the contact was still in progress when the tapper made contact with the ball....the initial contact doesn't have to be the actual point of the foul.

1. It didn't sound that way to me, but that may have been the case.

2. I have to disagree. Trying to do it that way can only lead to trouble. Keep it simple and go with the start of the contact. Don't give the would be tapper FTs that he doesn't deserve by rule.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I took your OP to mean that the player went for the ball, but had not yet contacted it with his tapping motion when the defender fouled him and that forced his arm forward and into the ball. As I noted above, that foul occurs PRIOR to the act of shooting and the goal cannot be counted nor can FTs be awarded, other than for the bonus.
However, if the tapper had already reached the ball and made contact with it, then you handled it correctly.
Either you need to convey your meaning better in written words or I need to decipher it better when reading them.
Anyway, I hope that my prior post was helpful and instructive should such a situation arise in one of your games.



1. It didn't sound that way to me, but that may have been the case.

2. I have to disagree. Trying to do it that way can only lead to trouble. Keep it simple and go with the start of the contact. Don't give the would be tapper FTs that he doesn't deserve by rule.

2. If contact prior to the tap is incidental, why call it? Only when the ball is also contact with A1 does B1's contact become a problem during the tap. I'm with Camron: shooting foul.

It's just like when Illegal Contact gets upgraded to Pass Interference because the ball has been thrown. Remember Terry Porter?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I'm with Camron: shooting foul.

But the rules aren't with either of you.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But the rules aren't with either of you.

You're saying that if the play in question is a foul, the foul will always be at the instant the contact first occurs?

[budjones05]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

The strangest foul in a men's league game would be one which nobody complained about.

Score one for Padgett

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But the rules aren't with either of you.

Really? Are you saying that contact that is occuring when the tapper is touching the ball isn't a foul???? Or are you saying that contact that occurs before the tapper touches the ball can't be incidental??? Show me those rules! (I'm not holding my breath).