Why is a foul worth 3 points...

[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