Fouling 3-point shooters

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

I have been watching a lot of D1 games lately, and have noticed a lot of no-calls on contact with a 3-point shooters arms after their release. They look like fouls to me, but go uncalled. Is there a new emphasis on not giving fouls in these situations?

Not. It just isn't a foul. What possible advantage could the defender have gained (or what disadvantage is imposed upon the shooter) by a defender contacting the arms/hands of a shooter when the ball is in the air?

We're not talking about knocking a shooter over here, just arm to arm contact.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not. It just isn't a foul. What possible advantage could the defender have gained (or what disadvantage is imposed upon the shooter) by contacting the arms/hands of a shooter when the ball is in the air?

None, but I would think protecting the safety of a jump-shooter is important? Not all contact is a foul of course, but I thought most contact of an airborne shooter is a foul?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

None, but I would think protecting the safety of a jump-shooter is important? Not all contact is a foul of course, but I thought most contact of an airborne shooter is a foul?

What safety is bring encroached by contact to the arm?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What safety is bring encroached by contact to the arm?

I've seen shooters hit on their arm, pulled down, and hit the deck pretty hard. That would be more an intentional or flagrant foul I guess. Part of my thinking comes from being told (or assuming) that any contact during the process of the shot, including after the release, is a foul. I'm going to check the rulebook to see what it says. I understand the advantage/disadvantage philosophy of it though.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

I've seen shooters hit on their arm, pulled down, and hit the deck pretty hard. That would be more an intentional of flagrant foul I guess. Part of my thinking comes from being told (or assuming) that any contact during the process of the shot, including after the release, is a foul. I'm going to check the rulebook to see what it says. I understand the advantage/disadvantage philosophy of it thought.

You were told (or assumed) incorrectly. This is generally incidental contact. Also, a lot of those shooters are throwing themselves to the floor to get a call. We have to decide how they got there and rule accordingly.

Originally Posted by Adam

You were told (or assumed) incorrectly. This is generally incidental contact. Also, a lot of those shooters are throwing themselves to the floor to get a call. We have to decide how they got there and rule accordingly.

Got any tips for me on judging this kind of contact? Should I only call it if a players gets thrown to the floor? If a player can get his arms hit after releasing the shot, how hard is too hard?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

Got any tips for me on judging this kind of contact? Should I only call it if a players gets thrown to the floor? If a player can get his arms hit after releasing the shot, how hard is too hard?

All contact is not a foul. So that needs to be your starting point. Secondly is no a player does not need to be thrown to the floor. Actually sometimes they hit the floor because they are off balance or trying to fake that they were fouled. And how hard an arm is hit is really up to your experience and seeing plays. I never call a foul if the contact does not change the follow through to some extent or if the player does not come back to the floor and gets contact that knocks them to the floor (not faking). But one of the biggest mistakes young officials make is call every little contact a foul. Don't be that guy.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

Got any tips for me on judging this kind of contact? Should I only call it if a players gets thrown to the floor? If a player can get his arms hit after releasing the shot, how hard is too hard?

If it is hard enough to twist the shooter around or alter the shooter's ability to land straight, sure, it can be a foul. But not just merely contact. You have to watch out for the shooter's acting it up too.

As an example, a defender coming across from the side or even from the front and mostly passing by but going through the arms with enough solid contact to bring the shooter with them....call it. I even had such a foul last week on a made 3-pointer...the defender came rushing out and, even though the contact was 100% arm and after the release, it still knocked the shooter back and actually down to the floor. So, it can happen, but it is about effect, not some ambiguous "protect the shooter"

A tap on the wrist/forarm that doesn't change the shooter's landing, nothing.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

I've seen shooters hit on their arm, pulled down, and hit the deck pretty hard.

No one here said that this isn't a foul.

You said, "contact with a 3-point shooters arms after their release." That's not a foul.

Pulling a player down to the floor is a foul.

Two different situations.

Originally Posted by seanwestref

I understand the advantage/disadvantage philosophy of it thought.

If you think "any contact during the process of the shot, including after the release, is a foul," then no, you do not understand advantage/disadvantage.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

If you think "any contact during the process of the shot, including after the release, is a foul," then no, you do not understand advantage/disadvantage.

Just because I said I can understand the advantage/disadvantage philosophy does not mean I agree with it. You don't know what I understand or don't understand.

During today's games I held off on calling this contact we are talking about, which I normally would have called! No one complained, which does not mean much, but I think I will continue to no-call this contact in the future.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

Just because I said I can understand the advantage/disadvantage philosophy does not mean I agree with it. You don't know what I understand or don't understand.

During today's games I held off on calling this contact we are talking about, which I normally would have called! No one complained, which does not mean much, but I think I will continue to no-call this contact in the future.

How can you disagree with calling the game of basketball as the rules and the overriding philosophy expects?

It's a lot easier to just blow a whistle every time there's contact, but that's not how we earn our big bucks.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

Just because I said I can understand the advantage/disadvantage philosophy does not mean I agree with it. You don't know what I understand or don't understand.

You don't agree with advantage/disadvantage????

Sorry but based on what you've posted in this thread, yes, I do know that you don't understand advantage/disadvantage, as any veteran official would who reads your posts in this thread.

A better understanding of incidental contact and advantage/disadvantage will help you better understand these types of plays.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

During today's games I held off on calling this contact we are talking about, which I normally would have called! No one complained, which does not mean much, but I think I will continue to no-call this contact in the future.

Careful about letting this carry any weight. Last year, BV end of the first half. A1 released a long 3, after which there was an audible smack as the defender contacted his arm. Home coach naturally wanted to know how that could not be a foul.

"Coach, the ball was 5 feet out of his hand. The contact had no effect on anything."

"So I can tell my guys that after every shot they should slap the shooter on the arm as hard as they can?"

"Well, you could try that and see how it works out for you."