Chitown, I'm well aware if that. And I could care less what you think or do either. You're a lost cause imo going way back. I do care though about other,newer officials that might mistakenly think that there is a faint possibility that you might actually know what you're talking about. So, when you post nonsense like you've been posting in this thread, I will respond. And no doubt others will also.

You've got a great future behind you.

Right, but I'm not talking about an airborne shooter. I'm talking about clearly after the shooter returns to the floor: A1 takes off, A1 releases, B2 comes at A1, A1 returns to the floor, B2 bumps into A1.

Again, the severity of the contact would determine whether this would be incidental or a foul, but it would NOT be a shooting foul, yet I still see it called that way. It isn't commonly accepted to give someone a foul after a shot that turned out to be good, but if the shot isn't made, that's easier to sell (especially in the bonus). In other words, how kosher is it to pause to see if the shot was good?

Not gonna name drop on here M&M, but ask your buddies if theres any absolutes & always in what we do. That's what makes it an art & not a science. And wow, how did we go from hand/wrist to arm? Pretty soon its gonna be elbow taps & gut pokes...

Could've fooled me, you put so much time & effort into me as if you have nothing better to do. I, on the other hand, only come here to kill time while on my Dolly Parton :rolleyes:

You care about bullying newer officials, perhaps. Playing internet God...

So my future is just as bright as yours eh :D

Well, I'm clocking out now so I'll treat you like a coach & let you have the last word...

Where I think you're wrong is with the idea that contact after the release can somehow affect the ball's trajectory. Yes, if a shooter doesn't have good follow through, he's likely got a poor shot. The follow through is just a sign, however, of technique. The follow through itself has no effect on the actual shot.

I've only had one coach question a no-call on after-the-release contact on the wrist; of course, his problem was the way he yelled at me, so we had a different sort of foul.

I can understand the idea that occasionally, contact will be so near the line between incidental and illegal that you'd use the success or failure of the shot attempt to make the judgment; but I would see this the same as going to the arrow on an OOB play because you couldn't tell who hit it last. IMO, it should be used slightly less often than that. But, I know there are assigners and evaluators around here who feel differently.

What I haven't heard from anyone, however, is that contact after the release should be called a foul when it doesn't disrupt the shooter's balance or position.

And that affects a persons ability to comprehend the rule in exactly what way?
Not in this universe. Go see any HS physics teacher if you must....but it physically impossible.

You could chop the shooter's arm off with a machete after the release and it couldn't possibly affect the shot.

While contact after the release could very well be a foul, it is most definitely NOT based on it affecting the shot.

This seems like one big discussion over semantics and wording.

I think too many get caught up in language of how something is described than whether it is a solid practice to call a foul.

Peace

+1

again

Changed your story a little bit. ;)

Not at all. Nowhere did I mention an airborne shooter in my initial question.

If the shot goes in, some would argue that there's no real advantage gained since there's no rebound. IMO, treat it like a block out in the post, that's what it is. If there's significant displacement, measurable in yards, then it's probably a good idea to get it. If not, then it gets a bit fuzzier.

If it's just a bump, with no displacement, you probably don't even have a foul regardless. If there's some slight movement, then I try to let it go unless the rebound heads to those two players.

True, but the context in which you asked your question involved contact on a shooter, and you really didn't clarify differently until later. :)

You mentioned in post #63:
You still haven't answered my direct question - what supervisor agrees with your statement above about waiting to see if a foul should be called on contact on the hand/wrist (arm, whatever...) after the ball is released? Also, what supervisor or higher-level official agrees with your assertion that contact after the ball is released can actually affect the shot that's already in the air, as per your post #79:
I can understand JR's frustration, as you continue to make statements that are not widely-held in the officiating community, without backing from any rules, NFHS publications, NCAA rules, casebook, or interpretations.

You mentioned that as long as all of your assignors keep putting you on quality games, you're not going to change. Given the fact that almost everyone here has disagreed with some of your statements, that might give you reason to possibly re-consider your position. Granted, if we are all just nameless, faceless, internet posters that have no credibility, than the same obviously applies to you and your positions. :D

I certainly would not ask you to name-drop, :rolleyes: but I would be curious as to the level your supervisors assign. I would also be interested if you would e-mail those assignors with the question of whether they agree with the 2 statements that have met the most disagreement here:
1. Does contact on the hand/wrist after the shot affect the shot, and thus should be waited to be called a foul until the shot is missed?
2. On a drive to the basket, can there be contact that should not be called a foul only because the player made the shot, but the exact same contact would be a foul if the shot was missed? (As per your post #52, which JR has quoted several times.)

I'm interested if you would answer any of these questions directly.

Hasn't done so yet, has so? Avoided 'em like the plague.

Hey, maybe I'm the plague. Been called worse. :D

Well, if you're picking up dog crap without using some sort of glove, I'm avoiding you too. :D

This has got zippo to do with what we've being discussing but......

The only plausible reason to pause to see if the shot was good or not is to determine if the ball had gone in before the contact occurred. If it had, you ignore any subsequent contact after that unless that contact was intentional or flagrant because the ball is dead. And if you do call the dead-ball contact, you have to assess an intentional or flagrant technical foul. And if the ball doesn't go in, you have to decide whether any contact on the player(who's no longer an airborne shooter) that occurred either before or after the try missed is incidental or illegal using the criteria listed under INCIDENTAL CONTACT in NFHS rule 4-27-2&3.

And you never have to sell a correct call, so that's never a factor either imo. Correct calls sell themselves. Quit worrying about selling anything and concentrate on making the correct call.

Does that answer your question?