Question about continuation calls in the NBA

[dland24]

Let me preface this by saying, this may or may not be a stupid question. 

If a player is fouled driving to the hoop, there are a couple of things that can happen.  The player can put the ball up, and if it goes in, it counts.  A player can put the ball up, and it can be goaltended, counting the shot.  

My question is, why do the rules allow the shooter to be hammered again, without penalty?  If a player is fouled on the drive, but manages to get in the position for the continuation attempt, and he is hacked again, nothing happens, its just a miss.  Why is there no penalty for this....and why dont we see players intentionally fouling a player who is attempting a foul continuation shot?  

Sorry if this is explained poorly, or is just dumb.  Its just something I have always wanted to know.

 

[TheGodFresco]

and why dont we see players intentionally fouling a player who is attempting a foul continuation shot? 


could be deemed as excessive and called a flagrant

 

[dland24]

Is that why? I mean, it doesnt have to be a hard foul. Just grab him so he cant shoot it.

 

[TheGodFresco]

Originally Posted by dland24

Is that why? I mean, it doesnt have to be a hard foul. Just grab him so he cant shoot it.

idk, but its a good question. To tell you the truth i was thinking about this a few weeks ago

 

[downtown43]

? i see players fouled on continuations all the time

 

[big j 33]

You probably don't see it because the time between foul, whistle, and shot, is so quick that defenders wouldn't have time to think to intentionally foul, not only that, but intentionally fouling someone AFTER the whistle would result in a flagrant or technical.

And like Downtown said, players do get bumped or fouled again, usually when the 2nd guy is going for the block or help.

 

[nomadicsole21]

^took it outta my mouth.

Its just the delayed effect, because after a whistle, you don't generally react to foul a player again so he can't get the basket.
And it may be deemed excessive or unnecessary at all.

Heres another question...if a team is leading by three, and the opposing team drains a three to tie it in the end of regulation, wouldn't it be safer to just foul and have them shoot free throws?
What are the odds of them making one, and getting an offensive rebound and a putback to tie it up?

It may be a cheap way of winning, but anyone agree with me?

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by NomadicSole21

^took it outta my mouth.

Its just the delayed effect, because after a whistle, you don't generally react to foul a player again so he can't get the basket.
And it may be deemed excessive or unnecessary at all.

That's right - and is the case if the rule is used appropriately - not in the case where you see some players take a couple of dribbles and then shoot after being fouled - and want the basket.

The rule is only designed for a foul actually while they're in the act of shooting - not about to shoot.

 

[octobersfinest]

What about if the player misses the continuation shot, it isn't a missed FG. Buuut, what about if somebody blocks the shot?? Shouldn't it be a block???

 

[strongmind3]

Originally Posted by OctobersFinest

What about if the player misses the continuation shot, it isn't a missed FG. Buuut, what about if somebody blocks the shot?? Shouldn't it be a block???

nah cause you can argue that the foul aided in the shot being block... at least thats how i look at it

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by OctobersFinest

What about if the player misses the continuation shot, it isn't a missed FG. Buuut, what about if somebody blocks the shot?? Shouldn't it be a block???

Nothing counts after the foul because the play has been stopped - the allowance is only there to allow a shot that was being made to have a chance to go in.

 

[octobersfinest]

Originally Posted by StrongMind3

Originally Posted by OctobersFinest

What about if the player misses the continuation shot, it isn't a missed FG. Buuut, what about if somebody blocks the shot?? Shouldn't it be a block???

nah cause you can argue that the foul aided in the shot being block... at least thats how i look at it

Yeah that's how I figured it too.  It was just something I always thought about...