Is the shooter still a shooter until his foot returns to the wood?
Is the follow-through not a part of the try?


Really? We have a difference of opinion & you resort to name calling? That’s say a lot about you Mr. Assignor.


Actually, RSBQ is used above the FT line extended (when used properly) SDF is used on plays to the basket below the FT line.

So, the players aren’t bigger, faster & stronger in todays game? If the way the game is being played has changed, why shouldn’t the mindset of officials change? Keep it in the 70s if you like… Im gonna change with the GAME!
But yeah guys like me don’t understand :->

The Tower Principle - For newer officials

Out with the old in with the new, but dont worry about it, you'll catch on in about 3-5 years. Then we'll be practicing some other new philosophies that you'll despise :rolleyes:


So you have many “do-overs” in your games huh? If we can hold the whistle for a sec when players are “entering the lane on the way to the basket” we can put them on the FT line as opposed to “nice move kid, ohh & you scored as well, now take it out & try again.”

You've seen the release & the defensive hit that knocks the shooters hand sideways or vertically, I'm sure!
Our job is to judge whether that contact AFTER the release affected the shot.


+1


Some people embrace change & adapt to better themselves, while others are stuck in neutral. I love change!!

Contacting the hand or wrist (or arm) during the follow through does not affect the shot anymore than the Fred Flintstone tippy-toe-jig affects your bowling throw after you've let it go. The follow through is good for ensuring your previous shooting movements were fluid, but interrupting it with contact does not affect that movement. The question remains:
What advantage is gained by the defender with this contact after the shot is released?
Yes, the shooter is still a shooter, which is why I'll protect him from harm by calling contact which displaces him or knocks him to the floor.
No, the follow through is not part of the try, even though the try is not over.
Personally, I can say from sitting with local varsity refs watching freshman games that if I start calling this sort of contact, I'll be working freshman games exclusively.

If the shot is missed, I can definitively state that it was not because of contact after the release.

Snaqs you did play the game at a competitive level didn't you? Contact on the follow through can change the shot, sometimes. That's what we get paid to judge.

I dont understand how that can be

hahahaha you KNOW damned well EVERYbody is watching the flight of the ball in freshman games! lol

Physically impossible, unless the shooter has the ball on an actual string (illegal) or is capable of actual magic (I might rule that an advantage not intended by the rules.) Once the shot is released, the shooter's motions cannot affect it.

Simple, just because the try itself is still legally not over doesn't mean the shooter's motion is part of it.

Now, if the contact is close enough to the release that you can't tell if it was before or after, then call it; but I'm not waiting to see if the ball goes in.
True enough, except for the jv and varsity officials sitting in the stands. :)

Concur, I hope I didn't give THAT impression! But I'm not using a patient whistle on jumpshots either, just dribble drives to the rack.

I am proud to say that I'm am a responsible dog owner. I always carry a l'il doggie doo-doo bag and disposable gloves. I even mimic like I'm actually trying to pick sumthin' up if anybody happens to look my way, even though I never do. What I don't do is pat the l'il barker on the head and say "good doggie" and give her a dog treat after she takes a dump. Nobody ever does that for me. Fair's fair.

And as we talk, "going postal" is being changed to "going Carlos".

1) I can't find one instance for where I called you a name. Your ideas about officiating are about the dumbest that I have ever read though. Note that relates to your opinions, not you personally.

2) And you still don't get it. And you never will get it. And I won't bother repeating myself again after saying for the last time that you haven't said one damn thing that is new in any way. Everything you said is just a re-packaged version of some very old and still valid officiating principles. And unfortunately, you don't even seem to understand the re-packaged version correctly either.

3) And that tells me all that I really need to know about you as an official. The only way that contact after the release of a shot can affect that shot is if the contact is on the ball, not on the shooter. Put that together with your statement "I explained that the contact enough for an and 1 was just enough to put the player on the line for 2 on the missed try'" and you got two statements made by you in this thread that tie for the stoopidest statements ever made on this forum.

Onwards and upwards to your Brave New World of officiating, tref. Hopefully, when you do build up some spit in your whistle, you might understand what we're talking about.

Ever JR? Come on man, couldn't be...

You sound like my daughter, if she cant relate to something then its stupid (but shes a child) whats your excuse??

That reminds me of another somewhat regular thing: the foul well after the release, particularly of the three-point shot.

We've all seen it. A1 launches a three, and B2 flies in and knocks into A1 well after the release. Based on the severity of the contact, I have these either as incidental or a non-shooting foul. I don't see how anyone can call a shooting foul under the circumstances, but they do.

Still, I sometimes wonder if it would be wiser to see if the shot goes in. It's rather unconventional to give someone three points and the ball or free throws. Thoughts?

If a defender 'knocks into" an airborne shooter & we judge the contact to be illegal, how can we not put em on the line, by rule?

And a little research shows that we ain't really looking at a new rodeo here.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...nged-call.html

Everything is changing but nothing really changes, eh Chitown? :)

And btw, you can add "I think we should try to find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to to looking for reasons to say 'nice try but take it out and try again'." to the list of dumbest statements ever made on this forum. The only thing that we look for is a foul, and we then have to decide whether that foul occurred in the act of shooting or not. That very basic principle seems to completely befuddle you for some reason.

Okay, you're right JR!! I'm going to change what's been working for me & my successful pattern because some guy(s) on the internet dont agree with how I word something. Keep in mind that we haven't seen each other actually work a game. But yeah, I'm gonna conform to how you want the game called. NOT!!!

As long as all of my assignors keep putting me on quality games, your opinion really matters to me like... NOT AT ALL!

Protecting an an airborne shooter from illegal contact has been a POE at both the NCAA and NFHS levels. It's up to the official to determine first whether the contact on an airborne shooter is illegal or incidental. And if you do call illegal contact on an airborne shooter, that airborne shooter is in the act of shooting until one foot hits the floor. Case book play 4.1.1.

That's how and why you can call a shooting foul under those circumstances. If the defender knocks the shooter down while that shooter is airborne, you should have a call...and the correct call is a foul in the act of shooting.

Hyperbole? Probably.

But I will have to agree it's a position not shared by any officials that I know. And, for the record, I do know officials that referee at the NCAA level, in both men's and women's, and I know officials that have officiated at the championship games of the Illinois High School Association tournament, both on the girls' and boys' sides.

So, I am curious - which officials and/or supervisors of yours agree with your position on contact on the arm after the shot is released also affects the shot?