[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by MJT
So you are using your judgement of what he was doing at the time of the foul. If he passes, how do you know that was not what he was doing (your words) all along?

Your question is not at all compelling. I could just as easily ask you how you know that he was passing at the time of the foul. Certainly his pass after the foul is not proof of what he was doing at the time of the foul.

Having said that, I will answer the question. How do I know that he was not passing at the time of the foul? Because I observed him starting the habitual motion that usually preceeds a try. That's all he needs to do to be in the act of shooting. A hand or an arm simply beginning the shooting motion is all it takes to get to the line.

Why if he intended to shoot, did he not shoot???

I can't even take this question seriously, to be honest. It's silly. He didn't shoot b/c he got bumped and couldn't get his shot off. So he does the next best thing, which is to pass to a teammate.

The only way to be sure of what he was doing at the time of the foul is to see what he ends up doing if he is able to continue with his motion.

This is patently false.

"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"

Tough to argue with that!!!

Let me give it a shot. A player begins the shooting motion, is fouled, and returns to the floor with the ball. He goes to the line.

A player begins the shooting motion, is fouled, and passes the ball. No shots.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If you judge that the shooting motion started, then the continuation of the motion is irrelevant (unless the ball goes in the basket).

Remember that you're not awarding FTs b/c the player shot the ball and was fouled. You're awarding FTs b/c the player was fouled while attempting to shoot the ball. By rule, all it takes to attempt is to begin the habitual motion.