Things I learned at camp

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The question remains:
What advantage is gained by the defender with this contact after the shot is released?

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

I dont understand how that can be

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tref

I dont understand how that can be

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.

Originally Posted by tref

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

True enough, except for the jv and varsity officials sitting in the stands.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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?

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Thoughts?

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.
...

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

...

Changed your story a little bit.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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?

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Snaqs you did play the game at a competitive level didn't you?

And that affects a persons ability to comprehend the rule in exactly what way?

Originally Posted by tref

Contact on the follow through can change the shot, sometimes.

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.

Originally Posted by tref

That's what we get paid to judge.

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

[JRutledge]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

+1

again