End of game foul

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

No one took away the player's shot.

Actually what is taken away is a field goal, which was taken after being fouled with time on the clock. APG is saying, and I agree, that taking these points off the board is much worse than denying the opponent an opportunity to go the length of the court in one or two tenths.

[APG]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.

But you are taking away the successful field goal that at any other point in the game would count. Now there are justifiable reasons for the clock technically not stopping precisely as it should...there's always going to be some lag time with the timer...there will be some lag time between foul and whistle...but it still doesn't take away the fact that a field goal that would and should count otherwise is taken away.

Again, I'm not worried about the chances of a team to try and score a basket with .3 or whatever seconds. Could something happen? Sure...but I'm not concerned with that 2 percent scenario that could happen. I'm more concerned with rewarding what JUST happen...the player for making a field goal even with illegal contact.