shot end?

[mutantducky]

girl goes for a layup, defender tries to block and misses. Offensive player lands and takes a step then gets hit. I called a shooting but I wasn't 100% sure on this one. I've had fouls when the player lands, then bang hit and that is more obvious that it is a shooting foul but this one was land, a step, so a very quick break then foul. Shooting foul here?

Originally Posted by mutantducky

girl goes for a layup, defender tries to block and misses. Offensive player lands and takes a step then gets hit. I called a shooting but I wasn't 100% sure on this one. I've had fouls when the player lands, then bang hit and that is more obvious that it is a shooting foul but this one was land, a step, so a very quick break then foul. Shooting foul here?

By rule when an airborne shooter returns to the floor and is then fouled the ball should go OOB. If it's close I'll give her shots though. YMMV.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

By rule when an airborne shooter returns to the floor and is then fouled the ball should go OOB. If it's close I'll give her shots though. YMMV.

Why the heck would you do that? Do you have the same attitude about other close calls? The player was close to staying inbounds while saving the ball, the defender was close to obtaining LGP, etc.

I have to take exception with your mindset here. Our job as officials to get the close plays correct, not deliberately miscall them!

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why the heck would you do that? Do you have the same attitude about other close calls?

Nope.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Nope.

Then why do you think that it is okay to treat this one differently?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then why do you think that it is okay to treat this one differently?

What I've been told by high level referees.

[Rich1]

If I am reading it right, in both your examples it sounds as if you are saying that the contact on the "shooter" occurs after they have released the ball and returned to the floor. That would mean she is no longer a shooter and therefore you can't call a shooting foul.

[mutantducky]

I've seen many shooting fouls called when the player lands, especially when it is very quick, right after the shot and landing to the floor.
The one I had tonight was more of a delay after the landing. I suppose either way could work. The coaches were fine with it. Someone made a comment that it should have been a rebounding foul after I thought perhaps that was right. I probably should have done that, but I thought because it was the defender trying to block the shot and it was part of the play maybe it was a shooting foul. If it had been another defender not on the shot, maybe it would have been a non-shooting foul. This is one I'd like to have a video for.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I've seen many shooting fouls called when the player lands, especially when it is very quick, right after the shot and landing to the floor.
The one I had tonight was more of a delay after the landing. I suppose either way could work. The coaches were fine with it. Someone made a comment that it should have been a rebounding foul after I thought perhaps that was right. I probably should have done that, but I thought because it was the defender trying to block the shot and it was part of the play maybe it was a shooting foul. If it had been another defender not on the shot, maybe it would have been a non-shooting foul. This is one I'd like to have a video for.

You don't need video. You just need a rules book.
Seriously, do you own one? If not, download the pdf given in another thread on this site AND then actually read it!
Please stop thinking that you know what you are doing and judging decisions by the standard of whether the coaches are okay with the ruling.
It is time for you to stop winging it and read & learn the rules!

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I've seen many shooting fouls called when the player lands, especially when it is very quick, right after the shot and landing to the floor. The one I had tonight was more of a delay after the landing. I suppose either way could work. The coaches were fine with it. Someone made a comment that it should have been a rebounding foul after I thought perhaps that was right. I probably should have done that, but I thought because it was the defender trying to block the shot and it was part of the play maybe it was a shooting foul. If it had been another defender not on the shot, maybe it would have been a non-shooting foul. This is one I'd like to have a video for.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I've seen many shooting fouls called when the player lands, especially when it is very quick, right after the shot and landing to the floor.
The one I had tonight was more of a delay after the landing. I suppose either way could work. The coaches were fine with it. Someone made a comment that it should have been a rebounding foul after I thought perhaps that was right. I probably should have done that, but I thought because it was the defender trying to block the shot and it was part of the play maybe it was a shooting foul. If it had been another defender not on the shot, maybe it would have been a non-shooting foul. This is one I'd like to have a video for.

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

girl goes for a layup, defender tries to block and misses. Offensive player lands and takes a step then gets hit. I called a shooting but I wasn't 100% sure on this one. I've had fouls when the player lands, then bang hit and that is more obvious that it is a shooting foul but this one was land, a step, so a very quick break then foul. Shooting foul here?

Once the airborne shooter touches the floor, with even one foot, that player is no longer considered to be in the act of shooting. You have been incorrectly calling these shooting fouls and awarding FTs.

I'm curious about the level of ball that you officiate as you have a great deal to learn. The positive is that you keep coming to this forum and posting, so that you can and will learn from your mistakes and misunderstandings.

[mutantducky]

In NCAA, High school and NBA I've seen many fouls called when a player shots, lands and gets fouled. It is bang, bang. Those fouls get called all the time. So you have a fast break play, player shoots the layup with a defender trailing fast from behind. Defender jumps up with offensive player. Offensive player lands first then defender hits into them. That is always called a shooting foul. I've never seen that not called a shooting foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

In NCAA, High school and NBA I've seen many fouls called when a player shots, lands and gets fouled. It is bang, bang. Those fouls get called all the time. So you have a fast break play, player shoots the layup with a defender trailing fast from behind. Defender jumps up with offensive player. Offensive player lands first then defender hits into them. That is always called a shooting foul. I've never seen that not called a shooting foul.

I have a hard time believing that you are observing quality officials consistently incorrectly call this play. The foul that you have described is a common foul or possibly not even a foul at all, if the goal was made and the contact occurred during the dead ball period immediately following the ball passing through the net.

[mutantducky]

Take a jump shot. A1 shoots and lands, but defender cuts off his landing or is boxing out too early. Too me the landing is part of the shot. So same with a layup play I mentioned. The landing is a continuous part of the earlier shot.
For the jump shot, if I see that the player has landed then, a tenth of a second later, B2 bumps into A I see that as a shooting foul. If there is a shot, land, then more of a delay then I'll call a non-shooting foul.