Foul Ruling?

[referee99]

... go in the basket?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Possibly. BUT... if the foul on the shot caused the player to fall, and while falling, he reaches and grabs, I think a lot of times that's a "Oh I'm falling, let me grab something," situation, rather than a "Alright, A-hole, you're gonna foul me, then I'm bringing you down with me!" situation. If it is the former, then I don't think that the "intentional and excessive" part is true, and if I'm able to go double, then I would. Now all that being said, if it is clearly two separate acts, and you deem it cannot be called double, then I suppose you HAVE to go with intentional, as you can't have a common foul after the ball has become dead.

There was a try in flight = live ball.

[saluki34]

Originally Posted by Maineac

My understanding is that he had landed, and pulled him down as he was going to the ground.

If this is the case, then I think you can rule out a double foul.

Common foul on defender = 3 shots for shooter with lane cleared.
Technical foul on shooter (intentional after whistle) = 2 shots and ball for defense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by saluki34

If this is the case, then I think you can rule out a double foul.

Common foul on defender = 3 shots for shooter with lane cleared.
Technical foul on shooter (intentional after whistle) = 2 shots and ball for defense.

The whistle isn't relevant here. I can't imagine the try had ended.
Also, if it's all part of the same action, I'm going with a double foul. You may choose differently, but I don't think we can rule anything out.

[saluki34]

Originally Posted by Adam

The whistle isn't relevant here. I can't imagine the try had ended.
Also, if it's all part of the same action, I'm going with a double foul. You may choose differently, but I don't think we can rule anything out.

You are right in the whistle not being too relevant, but the whistle combined with the shooter returning to the ground and then pulling the defender down, seems to me that the try has completed.
So, a foul after the try could be handled separately IMO.

without seeing the play, it is hard to say for sure, but as said above, not 100% clear to rule anything out.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by saluki34

You are right in the whistle not being too relevant, but the whistle combined with the shooter returning to the ground and then pulling the defender down, seems to me that the try has completed.
So, a foul after the try could be handled separately IMO.

without seeing the play, it is hard to say for sure, but as said above, not 100% clear to rule anything out.

Players were still falling, even if he had landed, it's still likely a live ball.

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by Maineac

This was not my play and I was not there to witness it. This is how it was described to me by an official who was there. A1, attempting a 3 point FG from the wing, is fouled in the act of shooting by B1. As A1 falls to the floor, he grabs the arm of B1 and pulls B1 down on top of himself. This grabbing and pulling of B1 was not judged to be accidental. I'm interested to see how this play would be ruled by forum members.

6.7.4 doesn't matter if intentional or unintentional...

False Double foul. Doesn't matter if the ball goes in or not. Second foul by A1 was a player control and caused ball to become dead. Wipe the basket anyway! A1 gets 3 throws, with lane space cleared; because the ball goes to POI and is awarded to Team B.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

6.7.4 doesn't matter if intentional or unintentional...

Double foul indeed! Doesn't matter if the ball goes in or not. Second foul by A1 was a player control and caused ball to become dead. Wipe the basket anyway! A1 gets 3 throws, with lane space cleared; because the ball goes to POI and is awarded to Team B.

If it's a double foul, then it's not a player control. Basket counts, no free throws.

POI depends on whether the basket goes in. If it does, B gets the ball for an end line throw in. If it does not go in, you go to the arrow at the spot nearest the double foul.

10-6 penalty 1c, "No free throws: for double personal or technical fouls (point of interruption).

[Hawkeyes]

I'm sorry - this is a false double foul (4-11; 4-19-6; 4-19-9)
I stand corrected - good catch.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

I'm sorry - this is a false double foul (4-11; 4-19-6; 4-19-9)
I stand corrected - good catch.

I actually think it's a double foul, as they are "at approximately the same time."

I don't think this is all that clear cut, though, so I know a few are going to get a different answer.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

I'm sorry - this is a false double foul (4-11; 4-19-6; 4-19-9)
I stand corrected - good catch.

No need. I think it could be ruled either a double or a false double as "approximately" is rather vague. It really depends. I could argue either one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

6.7.4 doesn't matter if intentional or unintentional...

False Double foul. Doesn't matter if the ball goes in or not. Second foul by A1 was a player control and caused ball to become dead. Wipe the basket anyway! A1 gets 3 throws, with lane space cleared; because the ball goes to POI and is awarded to Team B.

If you decide to rule this a false double foul instead of just a double foul, the shooter's foul still would not be a PC foul as we have been informed that the player returned to the floor before fouling his opponent. Therefore, he is no longer an airborne shooter.

[Hawkeyes]

"Returned to the floor" is open to interpretation isn't it? What if a player shoots a set shot (not leaving the floor at all)?
If "airborne shooter" really only applied to literally being in the air - most girls below the collegiate level wouldn't get many FT's for "jump shots" on that dreaded illegal block-out.
Unless we are forced to go to a monitor in high school - that foul by the shooter seems to create the very confusing false double foul:
Live ball, fouls by both teams, before the clock is started following the first.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

"Returned to the floor" is open to interpretation isn't it? What if a player shoots a set shot (not leaving the floor at all)?

Still a shooter, just not an airborne shooter.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

"Returned to the floor" is open to interpretation isn't it? What if a player shoots a set shot (not leaving the floor at all)?
If "airborne shooter" really only applied to literally being in the air - most girls below the collegiate level wouldn't get many FT's for "jump shots" on that dreaded illegal block-out.
Unless we are forced to go to a monitor in high school - that foul by the shooter seems to create the very confusing false double foul:
Live ball, fouls by both teams, before the clock is started following the first.

Once the shot is released and the player is on the floor, the shooter is no longer a shooter. If it is a set shot, they cease to be a shooter on the release. Can't be an "airborne" shooter if not airborne.