Why is a foul worth 3 points...

[bellnier]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

The number of free throws has nothing to do with level of vulnerability. It has to do with the number of points being attempted (thusly, the shooters location) at the point the foul was committed. Theoretically, 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. That's a pretty fundamental concept of this game.

I guess I just don't get it. And, BTW, I have no agenda. Just confused. In both scenarios the player made his attempt BEFORE the foul. The subsequent foul did NOT interfere in the attempts in any way. Seems illogical then to have different awards for a foul that did not change the attempt. PS, instead of lecturing me about my obvious misunderstanding of an airborne player, it might have been nicer to just explain it to me.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by bellnier

I guess I just don't get it. And, BTW, I have no agenda. Just confused. In both scenarios the player made his attempt BEFORE the foul. The subsequent foul did NOT interfere in the attempts in any way. Seems illogical then to have different awards for a foul that did not change the attempt. PS, instead of lecturing me about my obvious misunderstanding of an airborne player, it might have been nicer to just explain it to me.

Don't mean to lecture...just trying to understand where your confusion is based.

I guess the way to look at it is to assume the foul can potentially (and likely) cause the shot to miss. If that's the case, the shooter should be awarded the number of uncontested shots that he was denied due to the foul.

I think part of your difference of opinion is rooted in the fact that you believe "Seems illogical then to have different awards for a foul that did not change the attempt". As officials, we operate under the assumption that a foul occuring DURING A SHOT can "change the attempt". We make that call based on the definition of when a shot begins and ends according to the rulebook. Believe it or not, when a shot begins and ends is a pretty significant concept. It may not be obvious to you if you're a casual fan. That's not meant to be an insult. There are some nuances to this game that are more complicated than you realize.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bellnier

I guess I just don't get it. And, BTW, I have no agenda. Just confused. In both scenarios the player made his attempt BEFORE the foul. The subsequent foul did NOT interfere in the attempts in any way. Seems illogical then to have different awards for a foul that did not change the attempt. PS, instead of lecturing me about my obvious misunderstanding of an airborne player, it might have been nicer to just explain it to me.

Well usually when people come there they are officials and it is obvious their understanding of some basic rules. You have to help us to help you if you are the one not understanding. And this is such a weird question that it would take us a time to know your lack of understanding of other rules.

But and airborne shooter is still in the act of shooting until they come back to the floor. So if a player is fouled while still an airborne shooter, they are considered to be shooting from where they left the floor.

Still I do not get why you would be confused. It is simple, the rules are not going to give an strategic advantage to the defense to just foul a shooter of a 3 point shot so that in a close game or normal situations the offensive team is not awarded what they were attempting to score.

If we use your logic for example. In a close game with seconds left, and a game margin with 3 or 2 points, what would prevent the defense from just fouling a shooter to either prevent the offense from tying or winning the game and purposely sending the team to the FT line to make fewer points that would help them win the game when a foul was called? Common sense should tell you that would be a great advantage and put no pressure on the defense to have to play defense or not foul to give what is considered an easier opportunity to score. And then take away an extra point opportunity and would make the game in some cases less exciting.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bellnier

I guess I just don't get it. And, BTW, I have no agenda. Just confused. In both scenarios the player made his attempt BEFORE the foul. The subsequent foul did NOT interfere in the attempts in any way. Seems illogical then to have different awards for a foul that did not change the attempt. PS, instead of lecturing me about my obvious misunderstanding of an airborne player, it might have been nicer to just explain it to me.

So, to your way of thinking, if the basket is made, should the shooter still be given 2 shots rather than 1?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So, to your way of thinking, if the basket is made, should the shooter still be given 2 shots rather than 1?

That's where I was headed next. All airborne shooters, no matter where on the court, or the result of the shot, should then be given the same amount of free throws.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So, to your way of thinking, if the basket is made, should the shooter still be given 2 shots rather than 1?

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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.