shot end?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

if a player goes for a jump shot, and a defender closes out quickly on D. Shot is up and player's toes hit the floor then the defender runs into him, preventing the player from making a safe landing. To me that is a shooting foul, 100% a shooting foul. If there is a jump shot then land(delay)then hit, then yes on the floor but I'm talking about these near simultaneous plays when the offensive player lands then contact. Those plays along with layups are in my opinion shooting fouls. I've simply seen all these plays called as shooting as they should. If I've seen differently I'd call it but I haven't.

exhausted this one, see you all in Hawaii.

By rule, not a shooting foul. In practice, I'm probably not seeing the toe hit the floor first. Using extreme examples in this case isn't helping your cause.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich1

First, you need to hang out with a better group of refs. Every ref that has earned my respect and almost all refs I work with in my area follows the rule book LITERALLY (the exceptions being those who either lack experience or don't have the desire to get better). Yes, there are places within the rules that we are supposed to use our professional judgement, such as when contact is a foul. But once we make that call the rules along with official interpretations of them (casebook, local interpreters, etc.) dictate what we do next, not the preferences of the individual referee.

I'm going to call shenanigans here.

No official worth his salt is taking the book literally on every rule.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

So the defender did what defenders are supposed to do - try to distract the shooter so that he/she misses the shot...and you don't like that for some reason.

Then after the shooter lands (even on only one foot) the defender messes up and bumps into the shooter, and you are going to call a shooting foul contrary to the rules because that's what the coaches and players EXPECT???

Holy crap.

So do you also hit the whistle and call a foul anytime a player or coach yells "And 1" because that's what they expect?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

If the shooter lands without hitting the defender, this is not a shooting foul. He wasn't in the landing space. Who's moving when contact is made? Because the way I picture your description, we may well have a foul on the shooter.

And I don't GAF what the coach expects to be called. The coaches who know the rules will expect this to be called by the rule.

Coach: Hadn't he landed?
You: Sure, but I still think it was a shooting foul.

[mutantducky]

on these latter examples that I do see called as shooting fouls, not the one in the original post, I think you can plausibility say you saw the foul occur before landing. If you have super slo-mo replay then you'll see that their feet hit first but as you said you aren't watching the feet/landing rather the whole play. So technically yes, their feet may have hit first but these would often be called a shooting foul because you are seeing the contact following the release and not thinking about whether or nor the feet landed.

going back to that set shot. Player shoots without jumping. Ball is released and from around the head and player's arms go forward, defender hits the player's arms on the follow-through. Offensive player hasn't left floor. To me that is a shooting foul if it happens right after. A foul on the arms for the offensive player natural follow through after releasing the shot still impacts the shot. Listen, I care what the rule says. But I'm just saying, on these plays where there is a foul on the follow through/or right after landing(I mean super quick) then I'm looking at the whole picture and I'm seeing if it was part of the shot or not. If I see there was a bit of a delay or more of a screen out, then yes I'll call a non-shooting foul. I'm not going to think about whether or not the feet hit first because that is less important than watching everything else.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

on these latter examples that I do see called as shooting fouls, not the one in the original post, I think you can plausibility say you saw the foul occur before landing. If you have super slo-mo replay then you'll see that their feet hit first but as you said you aren't watching the feet/landing rather the whole play. So technically yes, their feet may have hit first but these would often be called a shooting foul because you are seeing the contact following the release and not thinking about whether or nor the feet landed.

This part is a very different argument then what has been said before. If a shooter lands, and is then fouled, but the official had incorrectly determined him to be fouled WHILE AIRBORNE, then he screwed up the call, but did nothing unethical. That's fine, mistakes happen, a lot of what we do is on the spot judgement. But to know that a player landed and still call it a shooting foul is entirely unethical, and why everyone is so adamantly against you on this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

This part is a very different argument then what has been said before. If a shooter lands, and is then fouled, but the official had incorrectly determined him to be fouled WHILE AIRBORNE, then he screwed up the call, but did nothing unethical. That's fine, mistakes happen, a lot of what we do is on the spot judgement. But to know that a player landed and still call it a shooting foul is entirely unethical, and why everyone is so adamantly against you on this.

This. I'm willing to go so far as to say, if you can't tell whether he landed before contact, consider it a shooting foul. But that isn't what was presented initially or throughout this thread.

[bob jenkins]

I would support (I think) a rule change that extended "act of shooting" to include the completion of normal movements associated with a try, including a normal landing by an airborne shooter.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I would support (I think) a rule change that extended "act of shooting" to include the completion of normal movements associated with a try, including a normal landing by an airborne shooter.

How do you define when the normal landing ends?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

How do you define when the normal landing ends?

Probably the same way it's defined for the throw-in exception on BC violations.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

going back to that set shot. Player shoots without jumping. Ball is released and from around the head and player's arms go forward, defender hits the player's arms on the follow-through. Offensive player hasn't left floor. To me that is a shooting foul if it happens right after. A foul on the arms for the offensive player natural follow through after releasing the shot still impacts the shot.

The rule regarding when the act of shooting ends, 4-41-1 is according to the natural laws of physics, thus the act of shooting, by rule, ends ". . . when the ball is clearly in flight. . . " It is impossible for the follow through to affect the flight of the ball! The contact on the hand/arm of a set-shooter, after the ball is "clearly in flight" may affect his/her attitude regarding subsequent tries for goal, but it CANNOT affect the flight of the ball! Such contact will, often, be incidental, and not worthy of a foul being assessed, because it causes no unfair advantage/disadvantage.

WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH MAGIC HERE!

The addition to the rule - ". . . and includes the airborne shooter." is a safety issue, it has nothing to do with the flight of the ball, once "the ball is clearly in flight!"

[Kansas Ref]

On occassion a ref may see the defender slide his/her keister into the waist/upper hip area of the jumpshooter in attempt to initiate a box-out-- while the jump shooter is descending from the shot attempt. I have observed this to occur and result in either ankle fracture of said jumpshooter and/or a crack on the head of said defender by elbow of shooter as it strikes the head after the arms complete a follow through.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm going to call shenanigans here.

No official worth his salt is taking the book literally on every rule.

Amen.

Rich1 (and Nevada, for that matter), if you saw A1 driving through the lane between B1 and B2 get fouled by B1 and B2 at exactly the same time (not in the act of shooting), would you call a multiple foul?

Because literally that's what you're supposed to do.

Try it and let me know what your evaluators and assignors think. Also, let me know how long it takes to explain to the B coach that A1 gets one free throw for each foul despite the fact that A1 was not in the act of shooting (Rule 10 Penalties Summary 6a(1)).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Amen.

Rich1 (and Nevada, for that matter), if you saw A1 driving through the lane between B1 and B2 get fouled by B1 and B2 at exactly the same time (not in the act of shooting), would you call a multiple foul?

Because literally that's what you're supposed to do.

Try it and let me know what your evaluators and assignors think. Also, let me know how long it takes to explain to the B coach that A1 gets one free throw for each foul despite the fact that A1 was not in the act of shooting (Rule 10 Penalties Summary 6a(1)).

That is NOT the case being discussed. Apples and naked mole rats.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Amen.

Rich1 (and Nevada, for that matter), if you saw A1 driving through the lane between B1 and B2 get fouled by B1 and B2 at exactly the same time (not in the act of shooting), would you call a multiple foul?

Because literally that's what you're supposed to do.

Try it and let me know what your evaluators and assignors think. Also, let me know how long it takes to explain to the B coach that A1 gets one free throw for each foul despite the fact that A1 was not in the act of shooting (Rule 10 Penalties Summary 6a(1)).

I have no issue answering this.
If that is what I clearly observed, then I would definitely follow the rule in administering the penalties. I'm absolutely certain that I would have the backing of my assignor for following the rules.

I have also explained some strange plays to coaches over the 17 years that I've been doing this. On some of those occasions the coaches have not been pleased about it, but as they know that what I've told them really is the rule, they deal with it and move on.

I don't see what the big deal is in calling something that is unusual or unexpected. That's called having the stones to make whatever call is needed instead of being afraid to do it right.