shot end?

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by 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.

If the defender doesn't allow the shooter to land, then the foul MUST have occurred while the shooter was in the air. However, if the early box out or whatever else occurs after the shooters feet touch the ground, even a tenth of a second later, it's not a shooting foul and should not be rewarded with FT's. I would much rather have to answer to a coach who wanted free throws and didn't get them because I called it right then kick and/or ignore a rule.

[mutantducky]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

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

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

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.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

when the offensive player lands and contact is right after

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.

[mutantducky]

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