Why is a foul worth 3 points...
 

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...

I will be honest, I am confused you are asking the question.

It should be obvious, if you do not give a shooter 3 shoots on a foul when they are shooting a 3 pointer, then you will have defenders just foul the shooter in close games so that they only get two points at most instead of 3. The philosophy seems rather self-explanitory if you ask me.

Peace

No. It is NOT obvious. In each case the player has already made his attempt and missed. His opportunity to score 2 or 3 points, depending on his location on the court, was NOT changed by the foul AFTER the shot was released. The FTs are awarded because a shooter in the air must be protected. He is equally vulnerable in both cases, but the award is different.

Obviously the rules makers think a shot made from outside the arc is worth 1 more point than a shot from inside the arc so why would you think they wouldn't give 1 more free throw?

Obviously you are not familiar with the term "airborne shooter".

And since I guarantee you will not be happy with any answer given here you might want to try sending an email to Mr. Adams or Ms. Williamson or whoever handles IAABO and NFHS rules.

But I don't think you really want an answer b/c the answer is quite obvious. I think you just don't like the rule and want to vent about it.

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.

You lost me on this one. I think the only explanation is what BNR stated about knowing what an airborne shooter is or not.

Peace

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I Was Never Very Good At Math ...
 

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