shot end?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

How can you call that a shooting foul when it clearly isn't??? There is no ambiguity here. In fact, what you just described is LEGAL defense. If you have any foul to be called, it would be on the shooter.

Calling what others, particularly coaches and players, is 100% wrong. Call the rules. Doing it right is only made difficult by those who deliberately do it wrong.

[Zoochy]

You have been wrong from the beginning and continue to be wrong in you interpretation. What other rules are you bending to make the coaches happy?

[Camron Rust]

Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that.

Distracting the shooter is not a foul (well, unless maybe its unsporting conduct or something).

I do see many newer officials who call it too tight, so the general comments you were given I can see.

[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.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by 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.

First, you need to hang out with a better group of refs. Every ref that has earned my respect and almost all refs I work with in my area follows the rule book LITERALLY (the exceptions being those who either lack experience or don't have the desire to get better). Yes, there are places within the rules that we are supposed to use our professional judgement, such as when contact is a foul. But once we make that call the rules along with official interpretations of them (casebook, local interpreters, etc.) dictate what we do next, not the preferences of the individual referee.

Second, I can "not call it a shooting foul" because the rules say its not a shoiting foul. If they change the rule to include your scenario th en I will start calling it the way you suggest but until then I have to all it by the book as it is written today.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Correct. Until he returns to the floor the rules say he must be protected and therefore it is defined as a shooting foul.

[mutantducky]

if a player goes for a jump shot, and a defender closes out quickly on D. Shot is up and player's toes hit the floor then the defender runs into him, preventing the player from making a safe landing. To me that is a shooting foul, 100% a shooting foul. If there is a jump shot then land(delay)then hit, then yes on the floor but I'm talking about these near simultaneous plays when the offensive player lands then contact. Those plays along with layups are in my opinion shooting fouls. I've simply seen all these plays called as shooting as they should. If I've seen differently I'd call it but I haven't.

exhausted this one, see you all in Hawaii.

[just another ref]

What is lost in all this is calling this a shooting foul is not necessarily an advantage for the offense. A1 shoots, returns to the floor, gets knocked on his butt by B1 "boxing out." Shot goes in. If you call it a shooting foul and A is in the bonus, he only gets one shot instead of one and one or two. Had you considered all this, ducky?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

if a player goes for a jump shot, and a defender closes out quickly on D. Shot is up and player's toes hit the floor then the defender runs into him, preventing the player from making a safe landing. To me that is a shooting foul, 100% a shooting foul. If there is a jump shot then land(delay)then hit, then yes on the floor but I'm talking about these near simultaneous plays when the offensive player lands then contact. Those plays along with layups are in my opinion shooting fouls. I've simply seen all these plays called as shooting as they should. If I've seen differently I'd call it but I haven't.

exhausted this one, see you all in Hawaii.

And you're still wrong. Once the player gets a foot down, it is NOT a shooting foul. It might be a foul, but not a shooting foul. Otherwise, you're going down a slippery slope...how much delay before it wouldn't be a shooting foul? Stick with the absolute demarcations that are clearly defined in the book and stop making stuff up and you'll do a lot better.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

Shot is up and player's toes hit the floor then the defender runs into him, preventing the player from making a safe landing. To me that is a shooting foul, 100% a shooting foul.

100% sure, based on thirty-four years of officiating experience, including several years serving on our training committee, that this is not a shooting foul. I would bet my house on it.

Yes, he's allowed to land, but once he lands (toes on the floor) he's not allowed to taxi down the runway.

Is this microphone on?

[griblets]

Ok, so all of us (well, most of us) understand that the shot attempts ends when the airborne shooter returns to the floor. But when does the shot attempt end for a player that never leaves the floor? This is most often seen in girls games. I have not been able to find a rule to apply to determine a shooting vs. common foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by griblets

Ok, so all of us (well, most of us) understand that the shot attempts ends when the airborne shooter returns to the floor. But when does the shot attempt end for a player that never leaves the floor? This is most often seen in girls games. I have not been able to find a rule to apply to determine a shooting vs. common foul.

4-41-1
The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

4-41-1
The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter.

Sometimes the answer is so simple. I just never read it in that way. Thanks for the reference.