NCAA Men's question
 

Is there any situation where a shooter can charge or foul the defense but the bucket counts?

Yes.

If the foul is after the release, the bucket counts if it goes in (or is awarded for BI or GT).

Pepperidge Farm Remembers ...
 

Which, back in the olden days, was the NFHS rule. Am I right, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

There is also a situation (maybe more than one) in FED where the basket can count when the shooter fouls ;)

If the airborne shooter commits a technical or intentional foul or if a foul committed by a player in the act of shooting is part of a double-foul.

The game is tied with mere seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. A1, an airborne shooter, releases the ball on a try and before he returns to the ground, A1 flagrantly fouls B1. The ball enters and passes through the basket. Before the clock can be stopped for the foul, the horn sounds to indicate that time has expired in the fourth quarter.

So A1 is disqualified, A scores two points, and B1 is awarded two free throws. If B1 misses either free throw, the game will end and A will have won the game. However, if A1's foul is a common PC foul instead, A does not score two points and we're going to overtime.

It doesn't quite seem fair that a more severe foul here can potentially benefit A.

Unless I'm overlooking something this is a very good point. My answer is that this has occurred so seldom (never) that it hasn't been, and likely never will be enough of an issue to warrant a change.

Correct, but don't forget that in many states the DQ warrants a suspension for future games (like a red card in soccer).

If airborne shooter A1 commits an intentional personal foul, then the goal counts and there cannot be any carry-over to future games.

If I have good game awareness and the presence of mind to recognize the impact of my call choice, I'm going with the PC foul even if it could have been intentional or flagrant (assuming it was at least a 50/50 or better case of B1 having legal guarding position). Indeed, I don't want to reward Team A here. Let the players determine the outcome the way it should be determined, i.e. in overtime.

Of course if this is college, especially NCAAM, with the restricted area and all, I have a lot more to think about. Damn, that's a tricky one. Great officials have all of these possible outcomes figured out in advance like chess players during closing seconds of close games. I am not a great official. Yet?

I knew you (and some similar others) would know -- I was hoping to get some of the newer officials into the book.

I vote for this.

In reverse, the reason for what is in blue being true is because you buy into the silliness in red and would purposely make the incorrect call in black instead of simply applying the rules properly.

Got this mindset from an NBA official who lives in the area and stays connected to our board, where he started 20+ years ago. I'm going with his point of view.

It's not about purposely making an incorrect call. It's about choosing the appropriate application of the rules, and in this case the boundary between PC/intentional and intentional/flagrant is subjective to begin with. That said, in defense of dignity, I suppose if the personal foul were blatantly flagrant, I wouldn't have much of a choice because the DQ of that player would be very important at that point. I'll give you that.

Officiating is an art, not a science.

I've known a few NBA guys over the years and talked philosophy with them.
Some of what they say is appropriate at the HS and college level and other stuff isn't.
The main thing to remember is that the NBA is an entertainment business. The people involved are paid to perform a show. That is not the case at the HS and college levels. That is precisely why this particular way of thinking has no place at these levels of competition. True competition requires impartial arbiters of the rules (ie people who go by the book). The entertainment business allows for some thinking of what produces the best product and spectacle for those watching.

They could amend 5-1-2 pretty easily to cancel the goal in the event of any personal foul by an airborne shooter. Is there a reason the rule-makers don't want an intentional personal foul to cancel the goal?

I'm guessing because they never saw an intentional or flagrant foul on an airborne shooter and they never thought about it.

Man, I couldn't agree more with every word of this post. Don't get me wrong, I'll still apply the rules as they are written, but this would be a great change.

If it's a borderline call between PC and intentional in this particular end-of-game situation, I'd be inclined to err on the side of PC because of this rule. If, however, the airborne shooter kicks an opponent in the face after releasing the ball on the try, I wouldn't have much of a choice but to count the basket. Slightly absurd.

Either that or they could just go with the NCAA rule of counting the basket regardless of any foul that may occur after the ball is in flight on a try.

Can someone explain to me why a flagrant or intentional foul committed by an airborne shooter cannot also be classified a player-control foul? I read the definitions of each and don't see anything that makes them mutually exclusive.

The definitions says: A player control foul is a common foul......

Aha! I agree, stupid wording. Forgive me though if I use some common sense and disallow the basket when an airborne shooter karate-kicks a legal defender in the face after releasing the ball.

Wrong by the book, but I don't think you'll find anyone questioning you on the court.

Let's hope not. :eek:

Sadly, the NFHS doesn't often do what makes sense and sometimes even goes the opposite direction into absurdness.

For example, a several years ago Team A lost the right to run the endline when Team B committed any foul during the throw-in. The NFHS changed that to allow this privilege to be retained. However, just a few years ago the NFHS revoked the privilege of running the endline from Team A when Team B commits an intentional or flagrant personal foul immediately prior to or during the throw-in. This was done by adding the word "common" to rule 7-5-7b.

Several of us on here questioned the logic in taking something away from Team A because Team B offends in a more serious manner.

Just call the shooter for swinging elbows while they do that and it, being a violation on the offense, will kill the ball instantly....and then call the T.

Just like I never call a T for slapping the ball out of a thrower's hands cuz I call the delay of game first! I like it.

I really hope that you're not serious.

At Least A Warning Is Written In The Scorebook ...
 

I've often wondered (technically, not by application) how one (cross boundary) can happen before the other one (slap), and still be ignored (with the exception of a warning being written in the book).

That's like asking why a player doesn't receive a flagrant technical foul for each punch that he throws during a fight.

I'm not. :) Called my first one this summer!

There's some case play to the effect of "penalize the entire act", so you need to get the T on this (and the T also serves as the warning).

9.2.10 a

I did! Men's rec, go figure.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

NFHS 9.2.10 SITUATION A: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through
the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Team B has not been
warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction. RULING: B1 is charged with a
technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded
and reported to the head coach. COMMENT: In situations with the clock running
and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering
with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the
clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower’s efforts to
make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous
warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock
and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic. (4-
47-1; 10-1-5b, c; 10-3-10)

Nevada, La Rikardo and AremRed had basically the same opinion I did. Don't you have any vitriol for them, too? :p

As an evaluator you both would have a new tuchus hole if you didn't enforce the rule correctly.

MTD, Sr.

I don't have a men's book. Can you post the rules reference and the rule?

The NCAA men's definition of player control does NOT include the airborne shooter. See 4-9

From the Case Book:
A.R. 158.
(Men) A1 drives for a layup. After the ball leaves A1’s hand but
before it goes through the basket, A1 charges into B1. A1’s try is
successful. Team B is not in the bonus. The out-of-bounds spot
nearest to where the personal foul occurred is on the end line. When the ball is handed to the thrower-in for Team B, may this
player move along the end line?
RULING: Yes. Since Team B is not in the bonus, designating a spot
is not necessary. Team B is permitted to put the ball in play from any
point out of bounds at the end line where the basket was scored since
Team A was credited with the score.
(Rule 7-4.6.a)


You can download the current NCAA book here for free: https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4...all-rules.aspx

The 2015 NCAA Case Book is here: https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4...case-book.aspx

I had a game in a shootout earlier this season where this almost came up. There was under 10 seconds left in the game and the coach of the team that was trailing (Down four I think) told me at the end of a timeout that if they scored immediately following the timeout, his team was going to reach through the plane and get a DoG warning. I was walking away so I just nodded, then this case play popped into my head and I realized I was going to ignore it if it came with under five seconds left, then I would have the explain to him why I didn't stop the clock and give the warning. Thankfully they didn't even score so it didn't come to that.