Airborne shooter A1 fouls B1. Prior to the foul B2 goaltends A1's try. What is the correct call and administration? Got a rule reference?

Thanks.

If the GT occurs prior to the foul, the basket is good. The ball is dead at that point. However, an airborne shooter can foul after the ball has become dead. It's B's ball for an endline throw-in and they can run the endline. 4-1-1, 4-19-1 Note, 4-22-1, 7-5-7

so what kind of foul on A1?
 

Thanks for the reply but what kind of foul would then be called on A1?

It's a player control foul.

It's a player control foul...until the airborne shooter has landed it's gonna be PC...after they land, then crash - that would be a push...

so you?
 

call it player control, but the basket counts and B can run the baseline? How can I better understand the logic of this sequence?
Thanks.

Just to be a little legalistic, I don't think the basket is good, regardless of when the GT occurs. The ball becomes dead at that point, and the basket does not count, but there are two points awarded as penalty for the GT -- isn't that correct? So the PC foul does not affect the awarding of the points for the GT. The shooter can still commit, and be called for a PC foul. So there are two infractions here, aren't there, and they both get penalized? And there's no questions about who gets the ball, because if either one of these infractions occurs alone, B gets the ball.

So A gets two points and one team foul, A1 gets a personal foul, and B gets the ball and to run the baseline.

The logic is that although B gains some advantage by A1's PC foul, B1 in its goaltending gives some of that advantage up by A receiving two points. A doesn't seem to lose quite as much since B would get the ball either way, but they do get a foul added to the count, and that's something.

[Edited by rainmaker on Oct 30th, 2002 at 10:27 AM]

Yep, that is a bit legalistic.
 

But if you wish, I will change the wording to say that, " If the GT occurs prior to the foul, the basket is awarded."

A little picky this morning, aren't we Juules?

Re: so you?
 

Thought I made it pretty clear but:
1 - GT occurs on a play.
2 - AWARD the basket.
3 - Then, airborne player A1 fouls a PC foul.
4 - Since A fouled before B inbounded the ball after an AWARDED basket, they can run the baseline.

A violation occurs. The violation must be penalized, even if a foul occurs after it.

Read the definitions 4-1 and 4-19 for a better understanding.

my followup was
 

to ascertain why it would still be a player control foul after the GT. I thought that it would be another type of foul.
Thanks.

Nope...it's still a PC foul. The GT violation caused the ball to become dead, but PC fouls have an exception to the dead ball foul rule...until the shooter comes back down, they are an airborn shooter - call it PC...

Refer to your casebook. 4.19.6 Situation C covers this exact play, Page 28.

Penalize both ==> count the basket and B will get the ball for endline thow-in. A1 gets PC foul.

The casebook states "A defensive-goaltending or basket-interference violation committed prior to a player-control foul does not contradict the general statement that when a player-control foul occurs that player cannot score."

Re: Yep, that is a bit legalistic.
 

Been studying. Feeling bookish. Also, Mark Padgett has his issue about "calling" versus "requesting" a time out, so I'll keep this little bee in my bonnet and trot it out when needed.

I do think it makes it easier to explain why team A gets the two points, even though they committed a PC foul.

Good or Awarded, either way it means it counts. I think that makes it a little different than requested versus calls.

But you already knew that.

Nothin'
 

Nope! You got nuthin' now my friend. Remember the ball became dead when the GT occured, you can still have a PC foul from an airborne shooter...but, once the shooter lands the contact after that is ignored unless you judge it intentional or flagrant.

RD