shot end?

[mutantducky]

here is one
I'm calling a shooting foul here. That being said I've had similar type plays when I see the contact as incidental and I'll have a no call. But here I see the offensive player being hit while in the act of shooting. Just it is after the release and after the block, but it is still part of the original shot in my opinion and thus a shooting foul.
btw- skip to 9 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC0tbzn8IE4

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

here is one
I'm calling a shooting foul here. That being said I've had similar type plays when I see the contact as incidental and I'll have a no call. But here I see the offensive player being hit while in the act of shooting. Just it is after the release and after the block, but it is still part of the original shot in my opinion and thus a shooting foul.
btw- skip to 9 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC0tbzn8IE4

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.

[mutantducky]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I and someone hits the player's body or arms when they are stretched up for the layup.

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC0tbzn8IE4

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).



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.

[Adam]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I agree this is a tough call in real time ... But just about any call could be defended here.

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.

[mutantducky]

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.