shot end?

[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.