Last shot in the Indiana-Miami game

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rich1

If you were really looking hard for a reason to blow your whistle in the last seconds and extend the game the I see a foul here. Defender placed two hands on the shooter which by POE should bea hand check / illegal use foul. But I did not see even the slightest affect that it had on the shot so I say let it go.

Two hands on a shooter isn't part of the POE...that relates to a dribbler.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

Two hands on a shooter isn't part of the POE...that relates to a dribbler.

And I barely, if at all, see two hands on the shooter.

[Bad Zebra]

Exact same play, only it's a high school game…Fed rules…anybody calling this?

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Exact same play, only it's a high school game…Fed rules…anybody calling this?

Not me. Don't see how a mere touch effected this shot.
Now on the other hand, I have had defenders want to "tummy touch or leg touch" the 3 point shooter. After I have warn them to knock it off and they continue, I will call this a foul.

[Rob1968]

NBE: Call that a foul, on that player, at that time, in that game . . .? not if you want your contract to stay intact . . .

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Exact same play, only it's a high school game…Fed rules…anybody calling this?

What does HS rules have to do with this play? The concept of fouls are pretty much the same at all levels of basketball. And the NBA calls more fouls on shooters than most officials at the HS and college ranks. I would not call this a foul anywhere. There was no displacement and touching is not a foul in itself.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

I have no foul, at any point in the game, at any level of play.

[Rich]

No chance I'd call a foul on that. At any point of the game.

[OKREF]

Not a foul.

RSBQ was affected by the small amount of contact that occured.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by APG

Two hands on a shooter isn't part of the POE...that relates to a dribbler.

Well, if we're going to split hairs the, yes, a shooter is not a dribbler. And, although I see two hands on the shooter from just about the time he catches the ball until after he releases the shot, I guess the next post would just point out that since he didn't put the ball on the floor he was never a dribbler. For me the issue is all about disadvantage/sbrq. I didn't see it so I'm not calling it.

But, I think any ref worth their salt could infer from the poe that if two hands on the dribbler is a no no then two hands on a player who catches, takes a step and shoots should be ignored unless he puts the ball on the ground once.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Well, if we're going to split hairs the, yes, a shooter is not a dribbler. And, although I see two hands on the shooter from just about the time he catches the ball until after he releases the shot,

I really must be watching a video. I can't tell if there are two hands on the shooter or not. If there are, it doesn't seem obvious enough to me like with a hand check call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

But, I think any ref worth their salt could infer from the poe that if two hands on the dribbler is a no no then two hands on a player who catches, takes a step and shoots should be ignored unless he puts the ball on the ground once.

The POE most certainly doesn't mean 2-hand contact on the shooter should be ignored. It just may not be as automatic as it is on a dribbler but it is n't a freebie for the defense.

That said, in this case, I would still call it based on the affect...which I believe is none, thus no foul.

[Rich1]

Agreed. No foul in my view.

From the get go I have only been pointing out that if you WANT it to be a foul you could probably justify it.