Blocked Shot?
 

A1 attack the rim and goes to shoot a pull up. As he gathers and starts to elevate B2 reaches in and strips the ball on the way up - no contact all ball. A1 continues upward motion of his shot without ball arms flailing (trying to indicate he was hit? - maybe he just likes to flail?) Regardless he's left the floor without the basketball, B2 now dives after the loose ball going through the legs of the jumping player. Multipe other players dive in late. A1 ends up landing awkardly on back as players pile in.

Train wreck, bodies everywhere. No one is hurt or upset just playing hard.

Is the foul on B2 (clippng the player in the air as he chases down the loose ball) a shooting foul? When does it become a shooting foul in this scenario.

I've got a no call from what you describe in the initial action. No way would I have this as shooting ever if I were to have a foul. Sounds like an ugly play but doesn't mean there was a foul.

Piling on does sound like there may be some infraction.

Flailing arms and askance looks by shooters when they are unsuccessful in their shot attempt due to excellent defense is a common ruse to bait the ref into granting FT's. Based on what you described there was no "shot attempt" because shooter was stripped.

An awkward fall followed by a vigorously pursued free/loose ball is what occured (based on your description)--although there was an awkward spillage of bodies--I have "nothing". Play on.

Thanks for providing!

I do not have anything either. Sounds like a player "begging" for a call by his actions. And those situations I am less inclined to call anything in their favor.

Peace

By through, I interpret to mean that A1 was displaced (not literally through, as in between A1's legs). There has to be a foul based on this contact. Just because the ball is loose doesn't allow one player to displace another.

The question for me is whether A1 is considered in the act of shooting after the ball is stripped. I've referenced rules regarding the start and end of a shot, and I'm still not sure. By literal interpretation of 4-1 and 4-41-1, I lean toward a shooting foul. The shot began, the airborne shooter had not returned to the floor, therefore, he is still protected as an airborne shooter. Yet, I'd have a hard time call it that way.

Great question. I am interested to see comments on this play with rule references to support.

Ugly play? Yes.

Time for a no call? Quite possibly.

But...

If "starts to elevate" and "A1 continues upward motion of his shot" means he was in the act of shooting

and

"B2 now dives after the loose ball going through the legs of the jumping player" means he was fouled (plus, pantherdreams called it a foul with "Is the foul on B2"),

then, by rule, why wouldn't it be a shooting foul?

A player was in the act of shooting and illegal contact was made, not only while in the air, but during the landing (presuming shooter came straight down). Technically, it could be construed as a shooting foul.

"bodies everywhere" during a shot probably needs a foul called 99% of the time. Gotta see it though.

Forumis Interruptis
 

We interrupt these fine points to mention that this does not correctly describe the beginning of the act of shooting, at least not in NFHS.

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

I agree he is still allowed a place to land.

Call a common foul.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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