Quote:
Originally posted by MJT
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
No, it doesn't. The play was an attempt to throw for a goal. The fact that he was fouled doesn't negate the attempt.
|
It did not meet the definition of a shot attempt! Read all of 4-40-2 which 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.
|
...and he was attempting to throw for a goal. That's my judgment when I see this play. I judge that he was attempting to throw for a goal. that is in the definition of a shot attempt. It doesn't say that the ball has to actually head out toward the basket or the attempt is meaningless. It says "an attempt" which it was before it was rudely interrupted. Doesn't continuous motion apply here?
I also note that in the original play, the ball handler didn't change his mind about shooting until after the whistle. So the entire decision has to be made based on what happened before the whistle. I don't think it's significant that the player passed after the whistle. I know it's not easy to always see intent, but I th8nk we have to try in this situation. The original ref thought the player was going to shoot. Well, that perception is based on something. Was this a typical continuous motion? Did the dribbler put two hands on the ball and pick it up? Did he jump onto both feet? There's something here that gives an impression to the ref, and those things should be taken into account. If the player had begun the continuous motion, and then he was fouled, then he should get two shots, regardless of what happened to the ball after the whistle.
[Edited by rainmaker on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 06:30 PM]