shot end?

[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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow. Just wow. Screw the rules, let's let every ref decide what he thinks the player think. Air balls are travels if you catch your shot now. Gonna have to be "set" to take a charge. . . . Wow. Just wow.

Does this board have an "ignore" feature?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

But again, I don't care what the rules say

And that right there is your problem.

You would rather listen to what a bunch of your playing buddies down at the rec center think instead of read the rule and case books and know what you are actually supposed to call.

That is ridiculous.

[just another ref]

One other thing: Contact which would be a foul on an airborne shooter, if it occurs after the landing, often is not a foul at all.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 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.

Everyone, this person will remain a JV official for life.

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Everyone, this person will remain a JV official for life.

You think he'll make it that far?

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by 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.

As one who not only played but also coached for almost 20 years at the high school & college level I can say from experience that most coaches and more than 90% of players assume incorrectly about the rules so they are definetely not a reliable source for help with interpretations.

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

1) The rules are the rules and it is our job to enforce them as written. To say you don't care about the rules is cavalier at best. To actual mean it is not only ignorant but shows a complete disregard for officiating as a serious profession.

2) There is no way for the shot to be affected AFTER the player has landed. The ball has alrady been released. Even if I was willing to entertain the arguement (but I'm not) that anticipating the impact somehow affected a players ability to properly shoot I would view it no different than anticipating a block or other aspect of basketball. Fouls are a part of the game and in this case, the rules say this foul is by definition after the shot.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich1

There is no way for the shot to be affected AFTER the player has landed. The ball has already been released.

I fully understand what you are saying, but be careful with the actual language, and the ability of the mutantducky to correctly interpret that language.

In the case of an airborne shooter, we judge fouls on the impact of the contact to affect the shot, but we must also protect the shooter. If illegal contact is made after the shot is released, and before the shooter returns to the floor, we still interpret the shooter to be in the act of shooting, and penalize the defense by awarding the shooter two free throws.