Quote:
Originally posted by TimTaylor
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by TimTaylor
Take a step back and look at the following objectively & see which makes more sense:
1. Having to explain to the defensive player's coach "I think his intent was to shoot, he only changed it to a pass after he was fouled."
|
"Coach, he would have shot, if he hadn't been fouled." Not that difficult of an explanation.
|
And the coach reasonably asks "Then why did he pass the ball?" How does the official respond..."because he was fouled"? ....to which any coach worth his salt will reply "How can you possibly know that?" It's a circular argument Juulie....
Like I said earlier, we can't judge intent - only actions......far too often I think we, as officials, try to read too much into these situations.
The key to me in the situation as described is that the player clearly passed the ball. If he had even just hung onto it, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that the motion he started was a try, the contact disrupted his shot, and send him to the line. Ditto if there had been contact with the ball or arms/hands that could have caused the ball to be knocked loose, but that wasn't the case - as described it was clearly a controlled attempt to pass.
Officials are not omniscient (although I've met a few that think they are...). We can't make judgements on what if, or what might be, only on what is.
Just my $0.05 (inflation, you know....) 
|
You're conflicting yourself here. If he hangs onto the ball and you give him shots, you are judging his intent at the time of the foul. He never shot it, so how do you know he was going to?
Officials make calls based on intent and judgment all the time. For example, if a player steps out of bounds, how do you know whether to "play on" or call a technical foul for leaving the floor unauthorized? You judge intent. That's a rare example, but the point is that officials do judge intent all the time.
Z