Walk A Mile In My Moccasins ...
 

The lead was right there, and had a pretty good angle, so he was probably correct in his ruling. My ruling may have been a different call. But, who knows? Maybe I would have ruled the same if I had been there. It's a tough call. It's easy to criticize while watching the play, several times, at different speeds, from the comfort of my cushy office chair, in front of my high definition computer monitor, with an adult beverage in my hand.

Yeah, that video isn't a good one to base anything on. I can't tell when the contact occurred or how significant it was. I think a lot of us go OOB on that call.

I agree this is a tough call in real time. Not only is the official judging the initial play on the ball (clean block), the official must determine when the ball becomes dead (out of bounds) and assess the contact after the block as well as the timing of such contact relative to the the status of the ball (live or dead). With as quick as the ball went out of bounds, I'm fine with the official ruling the contact after the shooter returned to the floor to be incidental contact during a dead ball that is ignored. But just about any call could be defended here.

Three Sided Coin ???
 

The lead had three choices: foul in the act foul shooting, foul after the offensive player had returned to the floor, or out of bounds. He went with out of bounds. I can live with that.

btw, I want to add something on the jump shot, take it or leave it. :)

I play and I was talking to other players about these situations. Everyone assumed it was a shooting foul on the layups when the foul occurs right after the landing. That's just what players think and I'm going to stick with that unless there is a delay. it has to be really quick so unless it happens basically right after I'll go with the non-shooting foul.

For the jump shot. Everyone thought the landing could impact the shot. You could be thinking how the defender is in your landing zone. The plays when there is a landing then a foul, should be called shooting fouls because they are impacting the shot. Again, if there is a land then delay say an illegal screen out then that is non-shooting. But again, I don't care what the rules say if a player is hit right after the landing that is a shooting foul and it is foolish not to call it a shooting foul because it is impacting the shot.
I'm glad everyone here agrees with me. Oh you too, why thank you. Thank you very much.

Wow. Just wow. Screw the rules, let's let every ref decide what he thinks the player think. Air balls are travels if you catch your shot now. Gonna have to be "set" to take a charge. . . . Wow. Just wow.

Does this board have an "ignore" feature?

And that right there is your problem.

You would rather listen to what a bunch of your playing buddies down at the rec center think instead of read the rule and case books and know what you are actually supposed to call.

That is ridiculous.

One other thing: Contact which would be a foul on an airborne shooter, if it occurs after the landing, often is not a foul at all.

I've never said anything about being set to take a charge.

yes, I'm going to ignore the rule that says it is not not a shooting foul just because the offensive player's feet touched before the foul. That's often a shooting foul. As it is called. As it will continue to be. Rules are rules but a strict interpretation calls for absurd results or games being called with too many touch fouls, etc. Strict interpretation doesn't work and I doubt supervisors want to go by it either. Ref by the rules AND the skill level of the game.

If, In Fact, You Actually Know Them ???
 

I bet that you just love the new Freedom of Movement rules.

I had two early games with evaluators, old-timers, not a young whipper-snapper like yourself:). And another with a good varsity ref. In each I was told to lighten up on the fouls. yes, they were fouls by the rule but better to ref according to the competition and make sure games stay under control. If you ref too strictly the games will lack any flow or sense that the competition is between the players. I just don't believe in a literal interpretation of the rulebook in all situations.

if there is contact after the jump shot, maybe a light touch, or an incidental bump, sure that may not be a foul. But sometimes there will be and if I see it impacting the landing/follow through then that likely will be a shooting foul.

Everyone, this person will remain a JV official for life.

but I haven't

again. I don't know any refs who follow the rulebook literally. Not when the game is flowing.

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.

You think he'll make it that far?

well if you want answer that jump shot question I posed...