The FTs were awarded because A1 was fouled by B1 while A1 was, by definition in the Act of Shooting. In the scenario you described A1 was fouled by B1 after A1 had released the ball but was still airborne.

Consider the following play: A1 is attempting a Set Shot (insert Red Koltzman joke here) and is fouled by B1 before A1 releases the ball from a point a) inside the Three-point Arc, or b) outside the Three-point Arc. A1's attempt in both (a) and (b) is unsuccessful. How many FTs is A1 awarded? Two for (a) and three for (b).

My play is no different from your play because in both plays A1 is fouled in the Act of Shooting.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. JR's first post is a valid reason for the rule as written. Furthermore, I do not feel like climbing up into the attic (at this time of night: almost 12:4amEDT) but if my memory serves me correctly, the first year the Three-point FG was in effect in both NFHS and NCAA the penalty section was not amended to award three FTs when A1 was fouled attempting an unsuccessful Three-point FG.

The rule is written the way it is because it gives the official a DEFINITIVE end to the act of shooting, when he returns to the floor.

Otherwise, the official would be forced to decide in EVERY situation did the foul occur before or after the shot was released.

It's much easier to decide whether the shooter has returned to the floor or not.

And yes, I do believe the fact that the shooter is more vulnerable to injury before he returns to the floor plays a part is that philosophy.

If we want to add another layer of fun to this...if after the ball leaves the shooter's hand a subsequent foul would be considered a non shooting foul and we are into no shots/one and one or two shot territory.

Thats what it would be if no other rules changes were made -- that was my point in post #11.