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.

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

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.

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?

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.

I misread the OP in the same way.

But I don't think it changes the ruling. Once the ball is out of his hands the try has ended and the ensuing foul is common regardless of the airborne status of the player. They are going after a loose ball and it's essentially the same as if the defender went through the legs of a player trying to catch a pass.

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?

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.

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

Personal foul on B2, award the ball to Team A for a throw in closest point to where the infraction occurred or FTs if over the bonus/penalty limit (FIBA - 2FT on or after the 5th team foul of the quarter).

I don't think it's a question of a foul or not. Incidental contact may or may not be a foul depending on the situation and I truly do appreciate hustle plays as it sounds the OP has described. None the less, however, from this description B2 has disrupted the balance of an airborne A1 causing A1 to fall to the floor and creating a disadvantage. To me that should be a straightforward call with player safety in mind.

The real question is when did A1 become airborne for the try for goal? The wording of "As he gathers and starts to elevate" tells me he was not airborne at the time of the ball being knocked away, therefore not a shooter while A1 was airborne. Awarding Free Throws based on this IMO would be incorrect (unless as previously stated in a bonus/penalty situation.)

It may be a quirk in the rules, but it's clear that an airborne player must be either attempting to release a try or have already released the try in order to be considered an airborne shooter. Even if he had gone airborne prior to having the ball stolen, the fact that he lost the ball prior to releasing a try means he isn't an airborne shooter any longer.

Not any different really, than a shooter who changes his mind and passes the ball.

????

FIBA might be different, but in NFHS and NCAA, Incidental Contact by definition is NOT a foul.

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.

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.


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


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

Use some common sense, call this a common foul. :cool:

I think you're right with regard to the OP.

If, however, a player leaves the floor in an apparent attempt to shoot and gets stripped of the ball before he releases the try, then I think he was an airborne shooter briefly. Not that it matters, though. If he'd been fouled before the ball was stripped, this discussion wouldn't have happened.

Excellent explanation. If the ball is stripped or knocked out of the shooter's hands by a defender before he is able to release the try, then team control continues as there never was a try in flight. There is an NFHS Interp on this from about 2005.

Edit: Here is the Interp.
2003-04 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS
SITUATION 5: At the top of the key, A1 beats B1 off the dribble, reaches the free-throw line, and pulls up for a jump shot. At the apex of the jump and before the ball is released, B2 comes from the side and swats the ball out of A1’s hands. The ball goes behind A1, deflects off A2 and into the backcourt, where A3 is the first to touch it. RULING: A backcourt violation shall be called. Team control had continued for Team A because the try ended before the ball was in flight. (4-12-3a; 4-40-3,4; 9-9-1)

Nope, he was an airborne player in the act of shooting, but he never became an "airborne shooter" per the basketball definition provided at the beginning of rule 4.