Fouling 3-point shooters

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.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I called one of these an intentional this year. Defender came running by the shooter, no contact with the body or anything but he came through with the tomahawk about takin goff the shooters hands. I ruled it as excessive contact. Just block the shot. No need to come in swinging.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I called one of these an intentional this year. Defender came running by the shooter, no contact with the body or anything but he came through with the tomahawk about takin goff the shooters hands. I ruled it as excessive contact. Just block the shot. No need to come in swinging.

Maybe I'm just envisioning this wrong, but I have a hard time seeing as an intentional foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

Maybe I'm just envisioning this wrong, but I have a hard time seeing as an intentional foul.

Me too. It's pretty hard to have excessive contact only on the arms. Not impossible, but very difficult.

[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.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

I understand incidental contact, and how some types of contact are used to gain an advantage, or put their opponent at a disadvantage. However, I know that developing judgement about what contact is incidental and what is illegal take time. As such, I am leaning a lot on what I hear from other officials and this forum! Officials I work with call fouls on this very type of contact I posted on, which demonstrates to me that it is not incidental.

However, you gentlemen have explained exactly what makes this contact incidental, which overturns my previous thought about any contact on a jump-shooter being a foul.

So, while I may understand the principles of the advantage/disadvantage philosophy, I am not able to implement it yet. That is what I mean, and that is what I think you were trying to point out. I understand the why of officiating principles, I don't fully understand the how just yet.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

.

So, while I may understand the principles of the advantage/disadvantage philosophy, I am not able to implement it yet. That is what I mean, and that is what I think you were trying to point out. I understand the why of officiating principles, I don't fully understand the how just yet.

Well if you do not understand, you better learn soon. That is the entire premise on what we call fouls with. Maybe the rulebook does not use the term "Advantage/disadvantage" but it sure as heck is used in different terms talking about "Normal offensive and defensive movement" being affected by contact. And if that normal movement is not affected, it is not a foul, even if contact is severe (4-27). And that is why you are not seeing calls made just because there is contact and especially on these shots where only touching is taking place.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well if you do not understand, you better learn soon.

That's why I am here! But it does not help when guys here are busting my butt for not knowing certain things. I'm here to learn guys, you don't have to remind me how much I don't know. Just help me.

PS: Quote me right, I said "fully understand".