Things I learned at camp

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Changed your story a little bit.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

What type of shooter should we have assumed you meant?

Most of us, when speaking of shooters (especially a shooter who is illegally contacted), are referring to airborne shooters.

[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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

Not really, sir. Snaq made a comment from which I made a spinoff. But yes, you and Snaq answered my question. Thank you.

Originally Posted by "BadNewsRef

What type of shooter should we have assumed you meant?

I was referring to the period well after the shot. Perhaps "shooter" is no longer the appropriate term, under the circumstances, but I thought I made it clear initially. Sorry for any confusion.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Not really, sir. Shaq made a comment from which I made a spinoff. But yes, you and Shaq answered my question. Thank you.

I did not know that he posted here.

[bainsey]

It's late here on the east coast, NV.

Corrections are okay, but big red letters? Even I'm not that corrective.

[Nevadaref]

No slight to you intended. I only did it because I found the typo highly amusing.