NCAA Men's question

[Sharpshooternes]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

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).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes. If the foul is after the release, the bucket counts if it goes in.

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

[bob jenkins]

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

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.

[crosscountry55]

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

I vote for this.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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?

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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.

[La Rikardo]

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?