shot end?

[mutantducky]

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?

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

[Rich1]

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.

[mutantducky]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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?

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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!

[mutantducky]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

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!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

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.

[mutantducky]

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.

[mutantducky]

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

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why the heck would you do that? Do you have the same attitude about other close calls?

Nope.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

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)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Nope.

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

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

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.