Whaddya got?

[APG]

If one wants to go 100 percent by the book, then this would be either an intentional or flagrant personal foul or a player control/blocking foul since this is technically an "airborne" shooter and thus the exception would apply. You'd be 100 percent "right" by rule, but still wrong IMO. You ask 100 officials what they'd call on this, and you'd get at least 95 of them saying if a call is to be made, it'd be a T. I bet if you ask that many assignors, they'd tell you that they'd want a T on this call rather than a personal foul.

Those that are going by the book on this particular play are calling it too purely IMO. If you're going to go by the book this strictly then, I'm assuming you'll be calling multiple/simultaneous fouls (instead of picking one or the other), calling 3 second violations when an offensive player has the back of his heel in the lane, and calling a leaving the court when a portion of a player's foot is out of bounds.

Now I'm pretty sure that almost none of y'all would do that because that would be calling by the book too purely and not the intent of these rules and it's my belief that applying the airborne exception is a case this also. Of course this is all IMO.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

If one wants to go 100 percent by the book, then this would be either an intentional or flagrant personal foul or a player control/blocking foul since this is technically an "airborne" shooter and thus the exception would apply.

That's all I'm saying. That's all I've ever been saying.

You ask 100 officials what they'd call on this, and you'd get at least 95 of them saying if a call is to be made, it'd be a T. I bet if you ask that many assignors, they'd tell you that they'd want a T on this call rather than a personal foul.

I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with you.

that would be calling by the book too purely and not the intent of these rules and it's my belief that applying the airborne exception is a case this also. Of course this is all IMO.

And here is my only quibble. Why would this NOT be the intent of the rule? As I asked earlier, when else would an airborne shooter commit a foul AFTER the ball became dead? It can only happen after a dunk, because nobody has the hang time to stay airborne until after a 15-foot jumper goes through the basket. So it seems to me that this is precisely the intent of the rule -- to penalize a dunker who initiates contact with a defender, even after the ball has gone through the basket. The fact that the contact is delayed because he hung momentarily on the ring doesn't seem to change the essential elements of the play, IMHO.