Geoff
Last year

Fouled in the act of dunking

A foul in the act of dunking should be 2 points count and 1 because the ball is in a downward motion the same as if it was a normal shot. Referees have to judge the trajectory of a shot it's not hard to see whether a player dunking the ball is above the rimg.

Topic #46580 | Report this topic


PlaymakerMo  
Last year

So you're contending even though the ball is in the player's hands and a foul does not equate to a goaltend, the points should count? Explain.

Reply #781503 | Report this post


UseTaHoop  
Last year

So if you shoot the ball and you think it's going in, but the foul causes you to miss the shot, it should still count as 2/3 points AND the and1?

Or is OP describing: a dunk that is made, with a foul called, so the shot (dunk) should be counted as made for 2.

Reply #781507 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

How can the ref see this when he is focusing on players who are boxing out at the opposite end of the court?

Reply #781508 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

Continuation, made basket usually counts and a bonus awarded, irrespective of when the illegal contact occurred , from the initial gathering of the ball for the shot - until the shooter gets both feet back on the floor - a legal dunk should be point and bonus IMHO

Reply #781509 | Report this post


PlaymakerMo  
Last year

Not sure what point are you making, 509.

Of course a made basket counts when the continuation rule is applied. OP is referring to instances where a dunk causes a miss.

Reply #781512 | Report this post


AngusH  
Last year

Sounds like an unsportsmanlike foul to me, or at least a video review.

Reply #781513 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

If it was Wagstaff he probably flopped LOLOLOL Flopstaff

Reply #781514 | Report this post


Isaac  
Last year

Yes, I think they're asking about a foul causing the dunk to miss, but the ball being downward at the time. Not sure if there's a distinction around it being thrown down or still with hand contact.

Reply #781516 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

Does the ball need to be released from the hand in order to have a downward trajectory??

Can't be on its downward arc if it’s still in the players hand even if held above the rim.

Reply #781517 | Report this post


D2.0  
Last year

In many cases fouls awarded don't appear to fairly compensate for the opportunity lost.

I assume the point the OP is making is that it should be called a goal-tend, the points count, and so then a +1 awarded.
However I'm having a hard time visualising such an occurrence.
Most hand or arm fouls on an attempted dunk occur as the player is elevating. If its a say a blocking foul that cause the layer to miss, then its hard to make a case for a goal-tend.

As Angus said above, I do think than many such fouls, especially "hack-a-Shaq" types should be called unsportsmanlike.

That said, its my opinion, that shooting fouls should be moderated based on location. In my view a shooter fouled under the basket (eg within the no-charge ring) should receive a more generous consideration than somebody fouled outside the keyway.
But then I also think they need to refine "in the act of shooting"

Reply #781518 | Report this post


Shayno  
Last year

Just don't forget to box out!

Reply #781529 | Report this post


Isaac  
Last year

Does the ball need to be released from the hand in order to have a downward trajectory??
No, but it might change the situation according to the rules. Not sure - just guessing that's the distinction OP wanted.

Reply #781533 | Report this post


Geoff  
Last year

A dunk is a shot and that shot is above the ring and therefore must be on the way down. What I am saying is I'm sick of seeing someone go up to dunk the ball and and an opponent making a cheap shot foul and spoiling that players efforts to make the game more spectacular.

Reply #781537 | Report this post


Geoff  
Last year

By the way when did you ever see players boxing out on a dunk?

Reply #781538 | Report this post


PlaymakerMo  
Last year

"A dunk is a shot and that shot is above the ring and therefore must be on the way down."

But what if the foul occurs when the player is elevating? Neither the player nor the ball is on a downward trajectory...

Reply #781610 | Report this post


koberulz  
Last year

So you're suggesting it's impossible to legally block a dunk?

Reply #781627 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

I once got fouled in the act of dumping.

Reply #781677 | Report this post


Geoff  
Last year

Read what I said in the act of dunking, above the ring if it's a legal block then it's a legal block. Why read all this other crap into it if it's a FOUL.

Reply #781692 | Report this post


koberulz  
Last year

Because what you're saying makes no sense?

Reply #781738 | Report this post


Geoff  
Last year

Koberulz
Have you ever heard of Hack a Shaq? That's what I'm talking about a player deliberately fouling someone in the act of dunking stopping a certain 2 points and sending them to the foul line to shoot 2.

Reply #781768 | Report this post


koberulz  
Last year

Okay, but what's your point?

Reply #781772 | Report this post


koberulz  
Last year

(I mean, apart from the fact that that isn't actually what Hack-a-Shaq refers to, but that's hardly the biggest flaw in your argument here.)

Reply #781773 | Report this post


Geoff  
Last year

Hack a Shaq started by hitting him in the act of shooting and the great majority of his shots were dunks then they started fouling him in the open court but that's not what I'm talking about. In the act of dunking above the ring a cheap shot foul to stop the 2 points and send the player to the foul line where they may or may not get a score.

Reply #781784 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

I don't get why Geoff is trying to equate goal tending with fouling. They are 2 totally different things.

Reply #781786 | Report this post


Geoff  
Last year

Because I'm not talking about goal tending.

Reply #781789 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

The initial OP post talks about the ball on its downward flight like a normal shot and referees having to judge trajectory! Sounds like he is talking about goaltending to me!! SMH

Reply #781796 | Report this post


UseTaHoop  
Last year

Is it possible to call goal tending and a foul in the same play phase?

I think OP is trying to suggest that it should be both, but the ball would need to be on downward trajectory and the shooter (dunker) fouled.

It could happen with a block on the shot (dunk) and a foul on the body.

This would be very difficult to judge.

Reply #781797 | Report this post


Geoff  
Last year

A player is above the ring about to dunk, the ball is in either one hand or two and an opponent fouls and spoils the shot which if not fouled would obviously have gone in, that should count as 2 and 1

Reply #781803 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

I'm shooting a lay up next to the basket, if I wasn’t fouled it would clearly go in so that should be 2 and 1! Same stupid theory.

Reply #781808 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

You might want to read what the definition of a shot is under the article for goaltending. The definition for a shot and the Act of Shooting are different. 31.1.1

Thanks for playing.

Reply #781810 | Report this post


D2.0  
Last year

It's funny that you should mention Hack-a-Shaq.
Do you honestly think that if Shaq was "in the act of dunking" (ie by your definition above the ring and shoving it down & in) that there exists a player capable of stopping that??

Even for a more average player, you're talking about a very narrow window of opportunity. In FIBA ball, the reason dunks exists is because it is a very effective shot. High percentage, and difficult to stop.
The only truly effective method is to strip the ball as the player is elevating. Even if fouling, most "successful" fouls occur prior to the downward action. If you actually foul as the player is stuffing the ball down, its likely to score and be a +1 anyway.


Reply #781813 | Report this post


Geoff  
Last year

D2.0
Are you serious Shaq was stopped from throwing the ball down on quite a few occasions by cheap shot fouls. That's where the Hack a Shaq thing all started.

Reply #781885 | Report this post


D2.0  
Last year

You talk about being fouled in the act of dunking, and that certainly happens.
But you then apply a very narrow definition, referring only to the final movement.
Fouling ONLY during the final movement of the ball down into the ring, AND doing so in a way that stops the ball entering the ring, would be difficult.
Unless you're talking about a much more extended form of dunk, such as a "tomahawk" type action? I can understand there that the offensive player has the ball above the level of the ring for an extended time and distance, and could easily be fouled in that phase. But such shots are not inherently more accurate than say a lay-up, so I can't see the argument for special consideration.

If your argument, more broadly, is that deliberately fouling a high-percentage shot, such as a dunk, should be more fairly penalised,
then I agree.
But its difficult to adjudicate, particularly with the broad definition given to the act of shooting.

NB: That is not, and never was the definition of "Hack-a-Shaq".
It may have taken its ultimate name from Shaq, but started long before, and generally refers to any strategy to intentionally foul a poor freethrow shooter. Moreover, the fouls were generally off the ball, to avoid the risk of a made shot or a flagrant call.

You may be thinking of the more general tactic of fouling a shooter to prevent an easy dunk or layup? I don't know if that has a pithy name.

Reply #782004 | Report this post


UseTaHoop  
Last year

The tactic of fouling to force poor ft shooters to the line predates Shaquille. It's an old strategy.

But I think the name "hack a Shaq" was only applied to Shaq-fouling. Otherwise “Shaq” wouldn’t even be in the name.

Sorry to be Captain Obvious.

Reply #782032 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

And deliberately fouling is already in the rule book under USF criteria 1. But surely players are allowed to contest a dunk even if they have no chance of blocking the shot, it happens countless times on drives to the basket each game.

What I do find odd is Geoff is basically saying if a player is dunking you cant attempt to block it otherwise if you do and you foul its 2 + 1. So if you can't attempt to block the dunk do you have to just let him dunk it because "I'm sick of seeing someone go up to dunk the ball and and an opponent making a cheap shot foul and spoiling that players efforts to make the game more spectacular."

I do not think I have ever read something so ridiculous. And there has been some fine contributions on this site over the years.

Reply #782035 | Report this post




 

Reply to this topic

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Ariel 43

Rules:You must read the Terms of Use. No spam, no offensive material, no sniping at other clubs, no 'who cares?'-type comments, no naming or bashing under 18 players. Learn how to embed YouTube videos or tweets

Please proof-read your post before submitting as you will not be able to edit it afterwards.



Close ads
Punch - insightful time tracking
Dunk.com.au - Custom basketball uniforms
Beam Orders - a quick, simple order and payments site for your business.

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



Invoicing clients? Stay productive with Punch, the insightful time tracker that earns you more.

Special offer: $30/month Pay $100 for lifetime access. Sign up now!

.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 8:22 pm, Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Posts: 845,448 | Last 7 days: 356