Blocked Shot?

[griblets]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try. He didn't, so he isn't.

You almost had me, but I'm not sold, yet...

4-41-2 - "...A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand..."

Therefore, if B1's strip was considered a foul, we would have a shooting foul, even though A1 had not "released" the ball on a try. Therefore, I think we have clearly defined A1 to be an airborne shooter, even though the ball was stripped by B1.

Good discussion.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by griblets

You almost had me, but I'm not sold, yet...

4-41-2 - "...A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand..."

Therefore, if B1's strip was considered a foul, we would have a shooting foul, even though A1 had not "released" the ball on a try. Therefore, I think we have clearly defined A1 to be an airborne shooter, even though the ball was stripped by B1.

Good discussion.

But, the ball did leave the player's hand.

And, because it was blocked, and (assumption) it was certain the throw would be unsuccessful, the try ended.

Since the act of shooting ends when the ball is released, and includes the airborne shooter, and since the player is not an airborne shooter, it's not a shooting foul.

[Pantherdreams]

Just for the sake of clarification in the OP. The player attempting to be a shooter does jump straight up and down. THe player diving after the ball does make contact with the legs of the player trying to land as he dives for the loose ball, effectively undercutting him.

If a player were just jumping for pass or for fun at midcourt and a diving player took them out I would have a foul. So I feel you have to have something on B2. Just not sure if its a shooting foul or not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Just for the sake of clarification in the OP. The player attempting to be a shooter does jump straight up and down. THe player diving after the ball does make contact with the legs of the player trying to land as he dives for the loose ball, effectively undercutting him.

If a player were just jumping for pass or for fun at midcourt and a diving player took them out I would have a foul. So I feel you have to have something on B2. Just not sure if its a shooting foul or not.

Was he an airborne shooter?

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Adam

Was he an airborne shooter?

Thats what I'm trying to establish . . .seems opinion is mixed.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Thats what I'm trying to establish . . .seems opinion is mixed.

You've read the relevant rules and the arguments here -- what is your opinion / decision?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Thats what I'm trying to establish . . .seems opinion is mixed.

Not an airborne shooter for two reasons.

First, he left the ball without the ball. Had he released a try before jumping, the answer would be the same.

Second, and most importantly, he never released a try. An airborne shooter must be someone who has either released a try, or still has the ball and is attempting to do so. Your player is simply someone who had the ball stolen who then proceeded to jump into the air.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

As he gathers and starts to elevate B2 reaches in and strips the ball on the way up

Originally Posted by Adam

Not an airborne shooter for two reasons.

First, he left the ball [edit: floor] without the ball. Had he released a try before jumping, the answer would be the same.

I misread the OP. I agree that there can be no airborne shooter if he leaves the floor without the ball.

I don't mean to hijack the thread with the following question, but would it change your ruling if A1 was stripped by B1 after becoming airborne, subsequently to have his legs taken out from under him while still airborne by B2 who is diving for the loose ball? That's what the play I was making the argument for A1 being an airborne shooter.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not an airborne shooter for two reasons.

First, he left the ball without the ball. Had he released a try before jumping, the answer would be the same.

Second, and most importantly, he never released a try. An airborne shooter must be someone who has either released a try, or still has the ball and is attempting to do so. Your player is simply someone who had the ball stolen who then proceeded to jump into the air.

I think you're right that if A1 is in contact with the floor when he's stripped he can't become an airborne shooter. He ceases to be in the act of shooting once he no longer has the ball and is still touching the floor.

However, if he left the floor before the strip, wouldn't he then be an airborne shooter? Or, is a strip sufficiently different from a block that he hasn't released the ball on a try?

[luvhoops]

It sounds as if it has been determined that the player began as a shooter and then when the ball was stripped (and it was clear it wasn't going in the hoop) the player became a non-shooter.

Given that, it would be a common foul.

Now, same scenario however ball is hit out of shooter's hand but still goes towards the hoop (meaning it has a chance to go in the hoop). Does that make our player an airborne shooter still when he gets his legs clipped and thus 2 FT's would be awarded if the ball does not enter the hoop?

[La Rikardo]

4-1-1: "An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor."

4-23-5b: "Guarding a moving opponent without the ball: The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact."

By my reading, A1 is not an airborne shooter, as he did not release the ball on a try for goal; the ball was stripped by B2 before A1 was able to release the ball on a try.

However, all Team B players must give A1 time and/or distance to avoid contact. If A1 is caused to fall by a Team B player (as opposed to a Team A player who might dive in an attempt to secure the loose ball), that player is guilty of a common foul.

Also note that since the ball was never in flight on a try for goal, Team A will continue to have team control until a Team B player secures control of the ball or the ball becomes dead. Any common foul committed by a Team A player until that time will be a team-control foul.

[JRutledge]

I do not see how someone can launch themselves into anyone either. It sounds like an incidental contact at best. Players fall over each other all the time in loose balls and that is what it sounds like.

Peace

[griblets]

I have been convinced that this could not be a shooting foul. I believe I was reading too much into it. The answer is usually very simple.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

4-1-1: "An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor."

While A1 was attempting a try, he never was an airborne shooter since he never released for try. Ensuing foul by B2 on airborne player (not shooter) A1 would be common foul.

Originally Posted by Adam

I...the fact that he lost the ball prior to releasing a try means he isn't an airborne shooter any longer.

Based on 4-1-1, A1 never became an airborne shooter.


I appreciate the discussion. Thanks to all who have contributed.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by griblets

You almost had me, but I'm not sold, yet...

4-41-2 - "...A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand..."

Therefore, if B1's strip was considered a foul, we would have a shooting foul, even though A1 had not "released" the ball on a try. Therefore, I think we have clearly defined A1 to be an airborne shooter, even though the ball was stripped by B1.

Good discussion.

When the foul occurs he is not throwing or attempting to throw anything. He doesn't have the ball when the foul occurs, therefore, he is not throwing or attempting to throw anything. If there is a foul at this point, it is a common foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by griblets

You almost had me, but I'm not sold, yet...

4-41-2 - "...A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand..."

Therefore, if B1's strip was considered a foul, we would have a shooting foul, even though A1 had not "released" the ball on a try. Therefore, I think we have clearly defined A1 to be an airborne shooter, even though the ball was stripped by B1.

Good discussion.

No, once the ball is stripped, A1 is no longer trying to shoot the ball. He is airborne, but not an airborne shooter. As Bob said, and airborne shooter is one who released the ball on a try.