Fouling on 3-pt. Attempts

[chseagle]

A1, in the process of shooting a 3-pt. shot is fouled by B2. The shot attempt is successful. Accoding to the case play listed in "Officiating Basketball", A1 is then going to shoot 2 Free throws.

How often does something like this happen?

I know the ruling is in process of shooting a 3-pt. shot that's missed, that 3 free throws are awarded, but hadn't until now heard of 2 free throws being allowed after a 3-pt. attempt was successful after being fouled.

[Back In The Saddle]

Only if the foul was rule intentional.

[tjones1]

How old is that book you are reading?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chseagle

A1, in the process of shooting a 3-pt. shot is fouled by B2. The shot attempt is successful. Accoding to the case play listed in "Officiating Basketball", A1 is then going to shoot 2 Free throws.

How often does something like this happen?

I know the ruling is in process of shooting a 3-pt. shot that's missed, that 3 free throws are awarded, but hadn't until now heard of 2 free throws being allowed after a 3-pt. attempt was successful after being fouled.

How would you get 2 shots? The only way you could get two shots on a 3 point shot is if the airborne shooter has returned to the floor and is then fouled while the team is in the double bonus. Or if this was an intentional foul situation. But if the foul is apart of the shot attempt, it has to be 1 shot.

Peace

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by tjones1

How old is that book you are reading?

The book has a copyright/publish date of 2005.

I just reread the case, the headline for the case says "Making the call on an intentional foul".

It's just something I hadn't heard of or seen before, so was wanting some clarification.

[chseagle]

Here's how the case is stated in the book:
A Centralia player is driving in for a fast-break layup & is intentionally fouled while shooting. The ball goes in. What is your call?

What would your call be if the shooter was intentionally fouled in the following situations?

1. The 2-pt. attempt did not go in.
2. The shooter is fouled in the act of shooting a successful 3-pt. attempt.
3. The shooter is fouled in the act of shooting an unsuccessful 3-pt. attempt.

Here's how the ruling us stated in the book:
The basket counts & the Centralia player who was fouled receives 2 free throws for the intentional foul. After the free throws, Centralia gets the ball at the OOB spot nearest the foul.

If either the 2-pt. or 3-pt. attempt are unsuccessful, the shooter gets the appropriate number of shots-2 for the 2-pt. attempt, 3 for the 3-pt. attempt-& Centralia gets the ball at the OOB spot nearest the foul. If a 3-pt. attempt goes in, the shot counts, the player gets 2 free throws & Centralia gets the ball at the OOB spot nearest the foul.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Only if the foul was rule intentional.

Just for completeness, also if the foul was flagrant.

chseagle, the case play you've posted is correct.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Just for completeness, also if the foul was flagrant.

chseagle, the case play you've posted is correct.

So the situation would only occur if say the person who fouled the shooter was purposefully trying injure the shooter? Or maybe there's too much physicality between the two so the foul was done in retailiation?

[Adam]

For an intentional foul, there will always be at least two free throws. If the three point shot is not successful, there would be three. Plus the ball at the spot nearest the foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

So the situation would only occur if say the person who fouled the shooter was purposefully trying injure the shooter? Or maybe there's too much physicality between the two so the foul was done in retailiation?

If the player was purposefully trying to injure the player, it would be a flagrant. An intentional is not defined that way. It could be excessive contact, it could be a simple push or hold that is obviously not playing the ball.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If the player was purposefully trying to injure the player, it would be a flagrant. An intentional is not defined that way. It could be excessive contact, it could be a simple push or hold that is obviously not playing the ball.

The foul does not have to be intent to injure. The foul could be savage and violent in nature as well to be flagrant. At least that is the definition.

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

time to get rid of a new poster...

[mbyron]

Another way to end up with 2 free throws: shooter returns to floor, is then fouled, and his team is in the double bonus.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by chseagle

The book has a copyright/publish date of 2005.

I...

Here you go: http://www.nfhs.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=3283

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The foul does not have to be intent to injure. The foul could be savage and violent in nature as well to be flagrant. At least that is the definition.

Peace

I know, but I was answering his question regarding intent to injure.