Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
"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.
|
If you think he begins the shooting motion, and is fouled, but passes, maybe he was never going to shoot. If he never gets the shot off, and it "appears" he was going to shoot, then I give him 2 FT's.
I will repeat something I said earlier and still have not heard a good argument to it. Rule 4-40-2 says "A player is trying for a goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is
throwing or attempting to throw for a goal. If he passes it, how can we say he is throwing it for a goal??? This is why I think if he passes it, he "passes" on his FT's as well.
The above RULE is what I think is the best argument for no FT's. He is not "throwing or attempting to throw for a goal" if he PASSED the ball.
PLEASE ARGUE MY POINT ABOVE!! If you cannot, how do you have a leg to stand on??
By the way, how do you quote parts of anothers post, and put your comments inside as was done in mine? Thanks.