something I've observed

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by representing

After my Girls JV game today (which went pretty smooth without problems), I stuck around to watch the first half of the Varsity game before I had to leave. Saw something that the officials did that I don't think I've seen done the same way in any other games I've seen in a similar situation:

V dribbles the ball down to the endline and gets under the basket. Stops... then it looks as if she is going up to try and shoot the ball. Get's fouled. Referee points to the OOB spot nearest the foul and says "underneath". Seems like I was the only one to hear this as the gym was pretty quiet still at this moment. He goes to table to report the foul and then points again to OOB spot. Gym erupts and coach is asking "wasn't she shooting?!"

At halftime I go to the locker room with the referees to grab my bag, but I just had to ask. "Why wasn't that a shooting foul?" His response; "She was behind the basket, there's no way she could have shot for an attempt to score points". His partner agreed and I left it at that.

Am I missing something here or does it seem like they messed up that call? The girl definitely went up for a shot, and it did not seem as if she was too far under the basket that she couldn't maybe swing her arm around to get a better angle at a "do-able" shot.

To answer your question, there is no NFHS rule which prevents such a situation from being a foul in the act of shooting. It is up to the discretion of the official to decide if the player was trying for goal when fouled. There is no inbounds area of the court from which a player is not allowed to try for goal.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

To answer your question, there is no NFHS rule which prevents such a situation from being a foul in the act of shooting. It is up to the discretion of the official to decide if the player was trying for goal when fouled. There is no inbounds area of the court from which a player is not allowed to try for goal.

So would you wave off the shot if it goes and give 2 shots for the foul? This is for someone who tries a shot frombehind the backboard and is fouled. the shot travels up and over the top of the glass and goes in.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

So would you wave off the shot if it goes and give 2 shots for the foul? This is for someone who tries a shot frombehind the backboard and is fouled. the shot travels up and over the top of the glass and goes in.

In that specific case, yes.

However, I was picturing a player who was under the basket and behind the plane of the backboard trying to shoot the up and under, not over the top.

[just another ref]

Not sure about this one. Was this player not attempting to score by throwing the ball into the basket? Does this not mean it is a try, even if the player may have misjudged where he was on the floor?

[Amesman]

In the case of a player behind the backboard, say, basically facing the free throw line and "attempting" a "shot" and getting fouled, would this not be akin to shooting at the wrong basket (i.e. not a legit try) attempt so no FTAs merited?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Amesman

In the case of a player behind the backboard, say, basically facing the free throw line and "attempting" a "shot" and getting fouled, would this not be akin to shooting at the wrong basket (i.e. not a legit try) attempt so no FTAs merited?

This response is for NFHS rules.

Nope, because the player is attempting the try at the proper basket. That is very obvious. You can't say that he isn't.

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This response is for NFHS rules.

Nope, because the player is attempting the try at the proper basket. That is very obvious. You can't say that he isn't.

Good point. Then it might be more akin to, say, a spindly 4-foot-1 fifth-grader trying a three-quarters court heave at the end of the half and getting fouled in the act? (No way he/she is ever going to make it but a foul is a foul [shame on the defense]... ?)