When you think you've seen it all...

[DogMania]

Basketball is one of those games where you keep on seeing things that you hadn't seen before.

One of the UNC Ash players hit the arm of the SU player before the shot clock went off, but the ball which went in was not released out of the SU players hand till after the shot clock went off. Since the foul was called a shooting foul, after reviewing the play, the refs waved off the basket and the foul.

Now say if that call was called as a non-shooting foul that took place before the shot clock expired, wouldn't the foul counted? Couldn't the refs have changed it to a foul on the floor? I'm assuming the rules wouldn't allow for such.

In other words the call stood or didn't stand not based on the contact which took place before the shot clock went off, but based on the type of foul that was called. Just a strange scenario that I have never seen.

Gotta love this game!

 

[SubbaBub]

That's a shooting foul with one second left on the shot clock. The only way it should be waved off, is if the foul occurred after the buzzer. Then its a shot clock violation and no foul.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[mets1090]

With no knowledge of what the rule is for this specific scenario, for me logic would have called that a shooting foul because you could argue that the foul is what prevented him from getting the shot off in time. Either that or its a foul before the shot clock expired and should therefore result in a Cuse possession. I think it's weird that if the Cuse player had stopped his shooting motion, Cuse would have retained possession.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Add to the fact that a UNC-A slapped the backboard while the ball was in the air, which is basket interference (it went in anyway). At the minimum, I'd have given him two shots and waived it off.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Should have been a shooting foul, but no basket. 2 shots.

 

[Deepster]

Add to the fact that a UNC-A slapped the backboard while the ball was in the air, which is basket interference (it went in anyway). At the minimum, I'd have given him two shots and waived it off.

NEIDERMEYER??? DEAD!!!!

 

[CL82]

Add to the fact that a UNC-A slapped the backboard while the ball was in the air, which is basket interference (it went in anyway). At the minimum, I'd have given him two shots and waived it off.

NEIDERMEYER??? DEAD!!!!

I heard that he was shot by own troops in Vietnam.

 

[DogMania]

Should have been a shooting foul, but no basket. 2 shots.

I don't see how it can be that. If it's a foul in the act of shooting then how can you not call the basket. But on the other hand, if the ball didn't get out of his hand before the shot clock expired, then it's not a shot, thus not a foul in the act of shooting. It would then seem the only two options are:

Since there was no shot, there's not foul (shooting foul). Ball goes over to the other team.

Or call it a non-shooting foul since there was contact called before the shot clock went off, but the shot itself is waved off because it was not out of the shooters hand in time.

Though I'd be okay if they called good plus the foul since the defender fouled the shooter before the clock went off thus allowing the continuation after the the buzzer because as pointed out, there's an argument that maybe the player would have gotten the shot off before the clock if he hadn't been fouled.

I'd love to see what the rule is if in fact such a scenario is described. Of all the possible outcomes, the way they called it (no shot -no foul) makes the least sense.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I think that's a fair point. It depends on how you consider time elapsing after a foul is called.

There's no question that it's a foul. A wrong was committed while there was time on the shot clock; it's a foul. But then what happens?

In my opinion, once the whistle is blown, time stops and play stops, except that the shooter is allowed to finish his motion. That is, once the whistle blows, the shot clock does not matter (unless it is ruled that the foul occurred after the violation, but that wasn't the case here).

My revised stance: should have been an and-1.

 

[DogMania]

I think that's a fair point. It depends on how you consider time elapsing after a foul is called.

There's no question that it's a foul. A wrong was committed while there was time on the shot clock; it's a foul. But then what happens?

In my opinion, once the whistle is blown, time stops and play stops, except that the shooter is allowed to finish his motion. That is, once the whistle blows, the shot clock does not matter (unless it is ruled that the foul occurred after the violation, but that wasn't the case here).

My revised stance: should have been an and-1.

After further deliberation, I think you nailed it Tenspro. I didn't think about how the clock should stop at the point of the foul, though they often allow some time run off for the reaction time it takes a ref to make the call. Now without seeing it again, I still think there was enough time on the shot clock between when the contact ocured and the player release the ball. What made the play look strange was that the contact took place just as the player begin his motion toward the hoop and it seemed to take for ever for that player to continue his motion toward the hoop and release the ball at the top of his jump. The amount of time on the clock dictated more of a chuck toward the rim. If there wasn't any contact, the player would have had no chance of getting that shot off the way he put it up there.

Still I go back to my original point, on the replay it sure looked like the contact too play well before the shot clock expired and should have been some sort of foul.