Rules are made to be ....
 

Followed. Enforced. Applied correctly and consistently.

It doesn't matter what you have seen or how quickly after they return to the floor it happens, by rule this is not a foul on a shooter. Makes me wonder how competent your partners have been (and why you're not watching your area) if this is occuring frequently in your games.

It also doesn't matter that both coaches are fine with it (second time you've used that line in a post to justify a blown call) or what a ref thought was right. What matters is understanding the rules, studying case plays, and getting things right.

We have all had coaches tell us "that's not what they did last game" and the above are two examples why. Not only will better coaches in your games and coaches at higher levels have problems with you if you do the above but it creates huge problems for those who go by the book. In addition, your ability to advance may become limited when they start complaining to your assignor and/or you are evaluated by other refs.

for the layup play, when there was a delay then the contact, yes I should have called that a non-shooting foul. But on these really quick plays on layups and jump shots, when the offensive player lands and contact is right after, then yes I'm going to consider calling it a shooting foul. I'll consider what you two said, and if I see the player as landing and clearly getting off the shot then I'll look to call the non-shooting foul. The simple fact is that many times refs call fouls when a player has landed. Maybe they can say with plausible deniability that it was a split second before the landing. But these type of plays are almost always called shooting fouls as they should be.

Where are his feet?
 

Even without slomo its obvious that the defender comes down on top of "shooter" after he returned to the floor. I would have a foul here but no shots unless we're in the bonus. Also of note is that the title of this clip asks "would you have a foul" not "would you have a shooting foul". There are some refs who may no call this and award the ball to white for a throw in, which is clearly what this training video is trying to address.

Ok, I'm done with this. We've told you the proper ruling, but you don't want to listen.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif

What I've been told by high level referees.

No. Just no.

It seems like you're in several threads making excuses, and defenses, for why you're missing calls.

The rules says that once the player returns to the floor, they are no longer a shooter. Period. If you KNOW they landed BEFORE the contact, and you still call it a shooting foul, you're doing every other official a disservice. Stop making up your own interpretations of clearly defined rules.

I won't have an issue if a ref doesn't call a shooting foul here. I thought it is but I understand it not being called. Yes, it is the foul after that is the main issue. But again I've seen plays at all levels where this is called a shooting foul. Or just picture it again without the block. Say there is a clear foul when the player lands and someone hits the player's body or arms when they are stretched up for the layup. That is called a shooting foul. Refs aren't asking whether or not the player landed. They are seeing it as part of the shot and therefore a shooting foul.

no disrespect Nevada. I'm listening to you as I always do and I'll adjust accordingly when it is proper. But on those layup type plays we should be watching the contact not whether or not the feet landed a split second before. Those can be shooting fouls. For the other ones when it is less bang bang then yes I'll adjust to calling a non-shooting foul.

Key words
 

This phrase is why you are wrong. Now, if in your judgement the contact occurs just before the player lands then you are right to award two shots. But if you KNOW that the player landed first then doing so would be wrong - there is no "continuation" after the player touches the floor. Several refs (excluding myself here) with experience and knowledge greater than most have not only told you the correct way to call this but have cited rules and case plays in doing so. Sticking to your guns here not only means you will be blatantly disregarding the rules but also that you are unwilling to learn. I am hopeful this will not be the case.

I'm willing to learn and I'll change it up now like the play mentioned in the original post. But my main point remains, that I often, at all levels, see this called a shooting foul and I think refs are correct to call it a shooting foul.
I'll narrow it down now, meaning if there is a delay or I don't see it as 'bang bang' then I'll call it a non-shooting foul. But if I see it as part of the shot then I'm watching for the foul after the shot and not if the feet land a split second before.
Peace

95% of the time when the player is still "stretched up" the player is still in the air (or maybe I'm not picturing what you are describing correctly).

I think part of the issue in this is the timing -- the first nano-second of contact is probably not yet a foul. But at some time, the contact causes a disadvantage and becomes a foul.

You can give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter when you're not sure whether the first contact happened before or after the player returned to the floor. But, in (at least most of) your descriptions, you have not had any doubt that the player was on the floor -- that should NOT be a shooting foul.

Bingo. With respect to 3-pt shots and sometimes long 2-pt shots, I was actually told by a northeast state board member once that on close plays involving an airborne shooter returning to the floor, they'd rather see free throws than giving the ball back to the shooting team OOB. That person's definition of "close" became generous when it was a hard box-out displacement call. I didn't understand it because of the rules, but that's what the board wanted to see, so I adjusted my interpretation and it got stuck in my brain. And then I moved to some other areas, and surprisingly I've never been questioned about this application since. It seems like there's an unspoken desire to err on the side of "in the act of shooting" when it comes to perimeter shots. Note I'm not talking about layups, which is how this thread started.

I've been catching up on this thread feeling a little bad for mutantducky (seriously, some of you guys have to ask yourself if you'd be as judgmental to his face as you are online; he's trying to get better, so lay off a little). That said, I respectfully feel on both his layup case and the video example that these were NOT fouls in the act of shooting. Had such a foul occurred bang-bang on the perimeter, I'd have two opinions, i.e. what the rules state I should call, and what I have a sense that the community of commissioners would prefer I call. I'm still torn by this. So I'm a little sympathetic to where mutantducky is coming from.

Please try to understand the rule rather than follow the leader. From your description, no video is needed.

Under NBA rules, a player is considered in the act of shooting longer than under NCAA/NFHS rules...which is why these type of plays will always result in FT's.

Against The Grain ...
 

I, for one (maybe the only one), don't believe that this play (video above) is as easy to call as most members have suggested. For me, it's a tough call in real time. In slow motion, it appears that there may be some contact between the defender's (from behind) right leg, and the shooters left shoulder, before the shooter returns to the floor (check out stop action by using the pause button).

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8590/1...2c5c3bd8_m.jpg

I'm sure the officials in the video had a better look at this play than the video's view, but, in my game, based on what shows up in the video, I would consider this a foul against a player in the act of shooting. It's close, a tough call, but my call, in real time, would probably be a foul against a player in the act of shooting. Let the beating begin.

On the other hand, I agree that the original poster needs to have a better understanding of what "in the act of shooting" means, especially in his written descriptions of plays.

Billy, in that video, it looks to me like they just called OOB on the defender.