Fouling 3-point shooters
 

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.

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?

Most of the time, the contact is on the hand after the foul through...most of the time this contact is just plain incidental and shouldn't be called in most situations.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.":)

Beginning thoughts of adv/disadv
 

With all the mentoring I do, with a newer official that is trying to grasp the concept we're discussing, I sometimews start with:
contact on the shooter's arm, then the ball: foul;
contact on the ball and the arm, judgement;
contact on the ball, and then the arm, rarely a foul.
As stated by several of the previous comments, the intensity of the contact, and its result - displacement, knocking the shooter off balance, etc., will be the determining factors.
My main objective with such a discussion is to get newer officials to understand adv/disadv. Obviously, more seasoned/skilled players will play thru more contact than lesser skilled players.

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.

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

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".

Well there is only so much we can teach you here. People in your area have to teach you things like this on some level as many of us here will disagree or say contradictory things. The best way to learn is to follow guys you work around and see what is acceptable or not and ask them why they call things. I watch high school and college games and see things I think should be called. I even watch my games and see things I wish I had called or passed on based on a lot of factors. And if you listen to some, you either "get it" from a judgment standpoint or you don't. I personally think you can always develop judgment but you have to get the concepts first then apply them properly. And the rulebook gives the concept, actually seeing it in games is what you have to decide to do and what to do consistently. That is why even when we show video here, many disagreements about what we would call and why. I would suggest you follow people in your area that are a level or two above you and use that as the best guidance. This place should only be a tool, not the main way you learn something as we cannot see your games and evaluate the same way someone in your local group(s) will be able to.

Peace

Please, read "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules", p.8 2012-13 NFHS Rules Book. The second paragraph mentions advantage, and disadvantage.
And please, don't be so defensive when one of our officiating community is direct in his admonition. Whether one accepts or ignores advice that is offered will not affect he who offered the advice, but can be of great value to the one receiving it . . . if he experiments on the concepts involved.

Trying to explain to you that you don't understand something when you think you do is not busting your butt nor is it reminding you how much you don't know. We're trying to get past your defensive posture and help you understand the things you can't read in a rule book.

One way is to stop watching games with your basketball fan hat on (burn it) and start watching with your official's hat on.

You can't watch from a fan's perspective and understand why the officials make their decisions. You can however, watch from an official's perspective and understand what the fan feels.....