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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"

Just don't forget to box out!

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

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.

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

"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...

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

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.

Because what you're saying makes no sense?

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.

Okay, but what's your point?

(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.)

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.

Because I'm not talking about goal tending.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.