Why is a foul worth 3 points...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

If a shooter is attempting a three point shot, and is subsequently fouled, the fouler has denied the shooter the possibility of successfully sinking the three point attempt. Thus, the remedy for the foul is three uncontested shots from 15 ft. If the shooter is fouled on a two point attempt, the remedy is only two uncontested shots ...

... and if he's fouled while attempting a four point shot ... Wait? I'm being told ... What? Your kidding? Never mind.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bellnier

Jump shooter inside the arc makes his attempt, misses, and is fouled while he is still in the air. He is awarded 2 FTs.

Same jump shooter is outside the arc, makes his attempt and misses, and is fouled while still in the air. He is awarded 3 FTs.

Why the difference? I assume the FTs are awarded because a player must be protected while in the air, but is the player more vulnerable by 1 FT just because he's behind the arc?

I realize this isn't a rules question per se, but so many of you know the philosophy of certain rules.

Thanks...

Because they are still considered to be "in the act of shooting" so the same penalties apply.

Now, the rule could have been "the act of shooting ends when the try is released (period)." and you'd get a different number of shots (it would be a common foul, with the ball awarded or bonus FTs shot), but that's not how the rule is. And, as far as I know, no one has ever (seriously) proposed it.

[Camron Rust]

I think he's making a reasonable point. It is a philosophical question, not what the rules are.

His point, as I understand it, is that he's not opposed to protecting the shooter, but after the release, a foul has no effect on the success of the already released shot. Instead, it is merely for the protection of the shooter....a step above a non-shooting foul but not really a shooting foul since the shot isn't actually affected. The # of FTs are typically considered a remedy for the harm caused by the foul. But, since the shot is already gone, it is going in or not regardless of the foul. So, why then is that foul worth 2 or 3 points depending on location. The shooter already didn't earn the points by missing the shot before they were fouled.

Now, to answer his question....

Am impending collision (or even less) can interfere with the shooter as they anticipate the contact.

Also, I don't think they want us to have to split that hair....whether the foul occurred before it was off of the shooters fingertips or not. Thus, we consider them shooting until they land. It is far more uncommon for the foul to occur close to the landing of the shooter such that we have to distinguish between shooting or not.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bellnier

I realize this isn't a rules question per se, but so many of you know the philosophy of certain rules.

Thanks...

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.