End of game foul

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The "you" in my post is plural

Then you should have said, "ya'll" or "you-uns"

[maven]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Then you should have said, "ya'll" or "you-uns"

Or, in some parts, "all y'all."

[just another ref]

Has anyone ever seen the OP actually happen?

1. I know the foul was before the buzzer.

2. I know the release was after the buzzer, so the basket doesn't count but we still shoot.

As written, this is the way it is. But there is a fundamental flaw here. If I know the above things are true, then I also know that the clock should have stopped with some small amount of time still showing. If this is not the case, the airborne shooter should be allowed to finish his try regardless of when the buzzer sounded if he is fouled. Perhaps an editorial revision/minor rule change is in order.

[bob jenkins]

Yes I have seen it, and I disagree that there is a fundamental flaw. I do understand the logic, and wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a change, but any time you choose to put back on the clock is just as arbitrary as zero.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes I have seen it, and I disagree that there is a fundamental flaw. I do understand the logic, and wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a change, but any time you choose to put back on the clock is just as arbitrary as zero.

If there was a change, I wouldn't be for putting time back on the clock, but rather that an airborne shooter be allowed to finish after being fouled, even if the finish is after the buzzer.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If there was a change, I wouldn't be for putting time back on the clock, but rather that an airborne shooter be allowed to finish after being fouled, even if the finish is after the buzzer.

That would be good...and the "right" solution.

With the presence of the foul, the shooter may have been able to release the shot before the buzzer. As such, it isn't entirely fair or just to not allow them to complete the shot if fouled before the horn.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If there was a change, I wouldn't be for putting time back on the clock, but rather that an airborne shooter be allowed to finish after being fouled, even if the finish is after the buzzer.

Care to elaborate so we may all benefit?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Care to elaborate so we may all benefit?

Sounds pretty straightforward to me. What part do you think he needs to elaborate on?

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If there was a change, I wouldn't be for putting time back on the clock, but rather that an airborne shooter be allowed to finish after being fouled, even if the finish is after the buzzer.

If you mean that you wouldn't be putting time on the clock because someone didn't have knowledge of the clock, then I agree, this should be the interpretation IMO.

[Raymond]

I think we've just nominated jar to write the NFHS and propose a rule change.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I think we've just nominated jar to write the NFHS and propose a rule change.

Pretty sure they already follow everything I post here.

That blarge thing is a done deal.

Oops, it was supposed to be a secret.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If there was a change, I wouldn't be for putting time back on the clock, but rather that an airborne shooter be allowed to finish after being fouled, even if the finish is after the buzzer.

But there is a fundamental flaw here as well. "The shooter is allowed to finish after being fouled even if the finish is after the buzzer." Okay,the shot goes in to win the game. But, we agree the foul came before the buzzer meaning there has to be a miniscule amount of time left in the quarter. If we're going to change a fundamental rule to allow the shooter to finish the shot after the buzzer I feel it's only fair to put something back on the clock to allow the opponent to at least try a long pass and tap to score in return. The only problem is the shooter would first get his "and 1" which he undoubtedly would try to miss on purpose likely denying the opponent the chance to score all because we are changing the fundamental rule that the ball must be released before the buzzer. Don't like the idea.

[APG]

Originally Posted by billyu2

But there is a fundamental flaw here as well. "The shooter is allowed to finish after being fouled even if the finish is after the buzzer." Okay,the shot goes in to win the game. But, we agree the foul came before the buzzer meaning there has to be a miniscule amount of time left in the quarter. If we're going to change a fundamental rule to allow the shooter to finish the shot after the buzzer I feel it's only fair to put something back on the clock to allow the opponent to at least try a long pass and tap to score in return. The only problem is the shooter would first get his "and 1" which he undoubtedly would try to miss on purpose likely denying the opponent the chance to score all because we are changing the fundamental rule that the ball must be released before the buzzer. Don't like the idea.

It's not fair for the shooter to have his shot taken away because the official is a little late on his whistle, or the timer is a little late on stopping the clock and the officials don't have definite knowledge to correct anything.. In this case, I would rather reward the player that made a shot despite illegal contact, rather than worry about any hypothetical chance for Team B to get to score.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by APG

It's not fair for the shooter to have his shot taken away because the official is a little late on his whistle, or the timer is a little late on stopping the clock and the officials don't have definite knowledge to correct anything.. In this case, I would rather reward the player that made a shot despite illegal contact, rather than worry about any hypothetical chance for Team B to get to score.

Disagree. No one took away the player's shot. The game at this level is played with the understanding that officials are always going to be a little late sounding the whistle following contact and the scoreboard person is always going to be a little late following the whistle. Instant replay is not an option (in most states) and even if it were, it would show there could be more than just a miniscule amount of time remaining that would be put back on the clock. That would give the opponent their fair chances. And some of those chances are not all that hypothetical. Goofy things can and do happen at any level of play. If I were the coach of that team, I would believe my players deserve that chance and I think you would as well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Has anyone ever seen the OP actually happen?

1. I know the foul was before the buzzer.

2. I know the release was after the buzzer, so the basket doesn't count but we still shoot.

As written, this is the way it is. But there is a fundamental flaw here. If I know the above things are true, then I also know that the clock should have stopped with some small amount of time still showing. If this is not the case, the airborne shooter should be allowed to finish his try regardless of when the buzzer sounded if he is fouled. Perhaps an editorial revision/minor rule change is in order.

I have seen it, once, and I ruled incorrectly.