shot end?
 

girl goes for a layup, defender tries to block and misses. Offensive player lands and takes a step then gets hit. I called a shooting but I wasn't 100% sure on this one. I've had fouls when the player lands, then bang hit and that is more obvious that it is a shooting foul but this one was land, a step, so a very quick break then foul. Shooting foul here?

By rule when an airborne shooter returns to the floor and is then fouled the ball should go OOB. If it's close I'll give her shots though. YMMV.

When does the try end?
 

If I am reading it right, in both your examples it sounds as if you are saying that the contact on the "shooter" occurs after they have released the ball and returned to the floor. That would mean she is no longer a shooter and therefore you can't call a shooting foul.

I've seen many shooting fouls called when the player lands, especially when it is very quick, right after the shot and landing to the floor.
The one I had tonight was more of a delay after the landing. I suppose either way could work. The coaches were fine with it. Someone made a comment that it should have been a rebounding foul after I thought perhaps that was right. I probably should have done that, but I thought because it was the defender trying to block the shot and it was part of the play maybe it was a shooting foul. If it had been another defender not on the shot, maybe it would have been a non-shooting foul. This is one I'd like to have a video for.

Once the airborne shooter touches the floor, with even one foot, that player is no longer considered to be in the act of shooting. You have been incorrectly calling these shooting fouls and awarding FTs.

I'm curious about the level of ball that you officiate as you have a great deal to learn. The positive is that you keep coming to this forum and posting, so that you can and will learn from your mistakes and misunderstandings.

Why the heck would you do that? Do you have the same attitude about other close calls? The player was close to staying inbounds while saving the ball, the defender was close to obtaining LGP, etc.

I have to take exception with your mindset here. Our job as officials to get the close plays correct, not deliberately miscall them!

In NCAA, High school and NBA I've seen many fouls called when a player shots, lands and gets fouled. It is bang, bang. Those fouls get called all the time. So you have a fast break play, player shoots the layup with a defender trailing fast from behind. Defender jumps up with offensive player. Offensive player lands first then defender hits into them. That is always called a shooting foul. I've never seen that not called a shooting foul.

You don't need video. You just need a rules book.
Seriously, do you own one? If not, download the pdf given in another thread on this site AND then actually read it!
Please stop thinking that you know what you are doing and judging decisions by the standard of whether the coaches are okay with the ruling.
It is time for you to stop winging it and read & learn the rules!

I have a hard time believing that you are observing quality officials consistently incorrectly call this play. The foul that you have described is a common foul or possibly not even a foul at all, if the goal was made and the contact occurred during the dead ball period immediately following the ball passing through the net.

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.

here is one
I'm calling a shooting foul here. That being said I've had similar type plays when I see the contact as incidental and I'll have a no call. But here I see the offensive player being hit while in the act of shooting. Just it is after the release and after the block, but it is still part of the original shot in my opinion and thus a shooting foul.
btw- skip to 9 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC0tbzn8IE4

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/aC0tbzn8IE4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nope.

There is no other way that I can say this--stop making up your own rule and call this play correctly!

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.


4.1.1 SITUATION:

A1 is high in the air on a jump shot in the lane. A1 releases the ball on a try and is then fouled by B1 who has also jumped in an unsuccessful attempt to block the shot. A1's try is: (a) successful; or (b) unsuccessful.

RULING: A1 is an airborne shooter when the ball is released until one foot returns to the floor. An airborne shooter is in the act of shooting. B1 has fouled A1 in the act of shooting. A1 is awarded one free throw in (a), and two in (b). (4-41-1)

4.41.1 SITUATION:

B1 commits a common foul by holding A1 during a field-goal try, but after A1 has completed the act of shooting. The foul occurs before the bonus rule applies. The attempt is: (a) successful; or (b) unsuccessful.

RULING: A personal foul is charged to B1 in both (a) and (b), but no free throw is awarded to A1 in either case. In both (a) and (b), the ball is awarded to Team A at the spot out of bounds nearest where the foul occurred. (7-5-4a)

Then why do you think that it is okay to treat this one differently?

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.

Rules are made to be ....
 

Followed. Enforced. Applied correctly and consistently.

It doesn't matter what you have seen or how quickly after they return to the floor it happens, by rule this is not a foul on a shooter. Makes me wonder how competent your partners have been (and why you're not watching your area) if this is occuring frequently in your games.

It also doesn't matter that both coaches are fine with it (second time you've used that line in a post to justify a blown call) or what a ref thought was right. What matters is understanding the rules, studying case plays, and getting things right.

We have all had coaches tell us "that's not what they did last game" and the above are two examples why. Not only will better coaches in your games and coaches at higher levels have problems with you if you do the above but it creates huge problems for those who go by the book. In addition, your ability to advance may become limited when they start complaining to your assignor and/or you are evaluated by other refs.

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.

Where are his feet?
 

Even without slomo its obvious that the defender comes down on top of "shooter" after he returned to the floor. I would have a foul here but no shots unless we're in the bonus. Also of note is that the title of this clip asks "would you have a foul" not "would you have a shooting foul". There are some refs who may no call this and award the ball to white for a throw in, which is clearly what this training video is trying to address.

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

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif

What I've been told by high level referees.

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.

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.

Key words
 

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.

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

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.

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.

Please try to understand the rule rather than follow the leader. From your description, no video is needed.

Under NBA rules, a player is considered in the act of shooting longer than under NCAA/NFHS rules...which is why these type of plays will always result in FT's.

Against The Grain ...
 

I, for one (maybe the only one), don't believe that this play (video above) is as easy to call as most members have suggested. For me, it's a tough call in real time. In slow motion, it appears that there may be some contact between the defender's (from behind) right leg, and the shooters left shoulder, before the shooter returns to the floor (check out stop action by using the pause button).

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8590/1...2c5c3bd8_m.jpg

I'm sure the officials in the video had a better look at this play than the video's view, but, in my game, based on what shows up in the video, I would consider this a foul against a player in the act of shooting. It's close, a tough call, but my call, in real time, would probably be a foul against a player in the act of shooting. Let the beating begin.

On the other hand, I agree that the original poster needs to have a better understanding of what "in the act of shooting" means, especially in his written descriptions of plays.

Billy, in that video, it looks to me like they just called OOB on the defender.

Walk A Mile In My Moccasins ...
 

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.

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.

Three Sided Coin ???
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

I've never said anything about being set to take a charge.

yes, I'm going to ignore the rule that says it is not not a shooting foul just because the offensive player's feet touched before the foul. That's often a shooting foul. As it is called. As it will continue to be. Rules are rules but a strict interpretation calls for absurd results or games being called with too many touch fouls, etc. Strict interpretation doesn't work and I doubt supervisors want to go by it either. Ref by the rules AND the skill level of the game.

If, In Fact, You Actually Know Them ???
 

I bet that you just love the new Freedom of Movement rules.

I had two early games with evaluators, old-timers, not a young whipper-snapper like yourself:). And another with a good varsity ref. In each I was told to lighten up on the fouls. yes, they were fouls by the rule but better to ref according to the competition and make sure games stay under control. If you ref too strictly the games will lack any flow or sense that the competition is between the players. I just don't believe in a literal interpretation of the rulebook in all situations.

if there is contact after the jump shot, maybe a light touch, or an incidental bump, sure that may not be a foul. But sometimes there will be and if I see it impacting the landing/follow through then that likely will be a shooting foul.

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

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.

You think he'll make it that far?

well if you want answer that jump shot question I posed...

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.

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?:eek:

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

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.

He said whaaaat?
 

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.


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.

Act Of Shooting ...
 

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.

Because that's not the rule!
 

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Runway Sixteen ...
 

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?

Set shots
 

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.

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

By rule, not a shooting foul. In practice, I'm probably not seeing the toe hit the floor first. Using extreme examples in this case isn't helping your cause.

I'm going to call shenanigans here.

No official worth his salt is taking the book literally on every rule.

So the defender did what defenders are supposed to do - try to distract the shooter so that he/she misses the shot...and you don't like that for some reason.

Then after the shooter lands (even on only one foot) the defender messes up and bumps into the shooter, and you are going to call a shooting foul contrary to the rules because that's what the coaches and players EXPECT???

Holy crap.

So do you also hit the whistle and call a foul anytime a player or coach yells "And 1" because that's what they expect?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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!"

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.

Amen.

Rich1 (and Nevada, for that matter), if you saw A1 driving through the lane between B1 and B2 get fouled by B1 and B2 at exactly the same time (not in the act of shooting), would you call a multiple foul?

Because literally that's what you're supposed to do.

Try it and let me know what your evaluators and assignors think. Also, let me know how long it takes to explain to the B coach that A1 gets one free throw for each foul despite the fact that A1 was not in the act of shooting (Rule 10 Penalties Summary 6a(1)).

That is NOT the case being discussed. Apples and naked mole rats.

I have no issue answering this.
If that is what I clearly observed, then I would definitely follow the rule in administering the penalties. I'm absolutely certain that I would have the backing of my assignor for following the rules.

I have also explained some strange plays to coaches over the 17 years that I've been doing this. On some of those occasions the coaches have not been pleased about it, but as they know that what I've told them really is the rule, they deal with it and move on.

I don't see what the big deal is in calling something that is unusual or unexpected. That's called having the stones to make whatever call is needed instead of being afraid to do it right.

Nope, but keep digging your own grave. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../goodnight.gif

You just won't listen.

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.
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.

Faulty Equipment ???
 

Maybe his speakers aren't working properly?

hey they were turned off. :rolleyes:

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. :confused:

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