shot end?

[Adam]

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.

If the shooter lands without hitting the defender, this is not a shooting foul. He wasn't in the landing space. Who's moving when contact is made? Because the way I picture your description, we may well have a foul on the shooter.

And I don't GAF what the coach expects to be called. The coaches who know the rules will expect this to be called by the rule.

Coach: Hadn't he landed?
You: Sure, but I still think it was a shooting foul.

[mutantducky]

on these latter examples that I do see called as shooting fouls, not the one in the original post, I think you can plausibility say you saw the foul occur before landing. If you have super slo-mo replay then you'll see that their feet hit first but as you said you aren't watching the feet/landing rather the whole play. So technically yes, their feet may have hit first but these would often be called a shooting foul because you are seeing the contact following the release and not thinking about whether or nor the feet landed.

going back to that set shot. Player shoots without jumping. Ball is released and from around the head and player's arms go forward, defender hits the player's arms on the follow-through. Offensive player hasn't left floor. To me that is a shooting foul if it happens right after. A foul on the arms for the offensive player natural follow through after releasing the shot still impacts the shot. Listen, I care what the rule says. But I'm just saying, on these plays where there is a foul on the follow through/or right after landing(I mean super quick) then I'm looking at the whole picture and I'm seeing if it was part of the shot or not. If I see there was a bit of a delay or more of a screen out, then yes I'll call a non-shooting foul. I'm not going to think about whether or not the feet hit first because that is less important than watching everything else.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

on these latter examples that I do see called as shooting fouls, not the one in the original post, I think you can plausibility say you saw the foul occur before landing. If you have super slo-mo replay then you'll see that their feet hit first but as you said you aren't watching the feet/landing rather the whole play. So technically yes, their feet may have hit first but these would often be called a shooting foul because you are seeing the contact following the release and not thinking about whether or nor the feet landed.

This part is a very different argument then what has been said before. If a shooter lands, and is then fouled, but the official had incorrectly determined him to be fouled WHILE AIRBORNE, then he screwed up the call, but did nothing unethical. That's fine, mistakes happen, a lot of what we do is on the spot judgement. But to know that a player landed and still call it a shooting foul is entirely unethical, and why everyone is so adamantly against you on this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

This part is a very different argument then what has been said before. If a shooter lands, and is then fouled, but the official had incorrectly determined him to be fouled WHILE AIRBORNE, then he screwed up the call, but did nothing unethical. That's fine, mistakes happen, a lot of what we do is on the spot judgement. But to know that a player landed and still call it a shooting foul is entirely unethical, and why everyone is so adamantly against you on this.

This. I'm willing to go so far as to say, if you can't tell whether he landed before contact, consider it a shooting foul. But that isn't what was presented initially or throughout this thread.

[bob jenkins]

I would support (I think) a rule change that extended "act of shooting" to include the completion of normal movements associated with a try, including a normal landing by an airborne shooter.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I would support (I think) a rule change that extended "act of shooting" to include the completion of normal movements associated with a try, including a normal landing by an airborne shooter.

How do you define when the normal landing ends?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

How do you define when the normal landing ends?

Probably the same way it's defined for the throw-in exception on BC violations.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

going back to that set shot. Player shoots without jumping. Ball is released and from around the head and player's arms go forward, defender hits the player's arms on the follow-through. Offensive player hasn't left floor. To me that is a shooting foul if it happens right after. A foul on the arms for the offensive player natural follow through after releasing the shot still impacts the shot.

The rule regarding when the act of shooting ends, 4-41-1 is according to the natural laws of physics, thus the act of shooting, by rule, ends ". . . when the ball is clearly in flight. . . " It is impossible for the follow through to affect the flight of the ball! The contact on the hand/arm of a set-shooter, after the ball is "clearly in flight" may affect his/her attitude regarding subsequent tries for goal, but it CANNOT affect the flight of the ball! Such contact will, often, be incidental, and not worthy of a foul being assessed, because it causes no unfair advantage/disadvantage.

WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH MAGIC HERE!

The addition to the rule - ". . . and includes the airborne shooter." is a safety issue, it has nothing to do with the flight of the ball, once "the ball is clearly in flight!"

[Kansas Ref]

On occassion a ref may see the defender slide his/her keister into the waist/upper hip area of the jumpshooter in attempt to initiate a box-out-- while the jump shooter is descending from the shot attempt. I have observed this to occur and result in either ankle fracture of said jumpshooter and/or a crack on the head of said defender by elbow of shooter as it strikes the head after the arms complete a follow through.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

...going back to that set shot. Player shoots without jumping. Ball is released and from around the head and player's arms go forward, defender hits the player's arms on the follow-through. Offensive player hasn't left floor. To me that is a shooting foul if it happens right after. ...snip.

Nope, but keep digging your own grave.

You just won't listen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You just won't listen.

Maybe his speakers aren't working properly?

[mutantducky]

hey they were turned off.

[griblets]

A month ago, I had a similar play on a 3-point shot where the shooter returned to the floor, was fouled on the box out, and I awarded 3 free throws. I knew in my head that I got it wrong, but it took this thread to confirm that to me.

I had a similar play in a game tonight on a 3-point shot, except this time the shot was made and I correctly awarded the ball to the team that made the basket. Even though I was clearly communicating that the basket was good, the foul was after the shot, and that the shooting team gets the ball, everyone in the gym was confused. I don't think they had ever seen it before. Ironically enough, the defensive team's coach was cool as could be about it and it was the coach of the team that made the 3-pointer and got the ball out of bounds that was upset with the call.

Because of the discussion on this thread, I was prepared to get it right this time. I appreciate everyone's input.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

going back to that set shot. Player shoots without jumping. Ball is released and from around the head and player's arms go forward, defender hits the player's arms on the follow-through. Offensive player hasn't left floor. To me that is a shooting foul if it happens right after.

And you'd be 100% wrong. Quit making stuff up. Doing what you're doing is the genesis of inconsistency. If everyone starts modifying the rules to be the way they might like them, we have a horrible mess.

Originally Posted by mutantducky

A foul on the arms for the offensive player natural follow through after releasing the shot still impacts the shot.

Absolutely not. You could chop the shooters arms off with a hatchet and the ball that was already released would be completely unaffected....unless, perhaps, Yoda is in the building.