[hawkk]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
hawkk
You did a great job of summing things up. My take on the case was 180 degrees different than yours. That is, if NF wanted to say initial release prevented, then second release attempted and succeeded, results is held ball, they would have done so. I read the case as saying that dropping the ball after your release was initially stopped does not amount to a release as a pass or shot, so held ball still occurs.

I think that JR made a good point that his interpretation is the one that is taught at clinics. It doesn't make it right, because we know even experienced refs don't always have correct interpretations (and this discussion proves that point - one side or the other is wrong, and we have lots of experience speaking here). However, it has always seemed apparent to me that if you release a shot or pass, you were not prevented from releasing a shot or pass. If you drop the ball after your attempt was stopped, you were prevented from releasing a shot or pass - held ball, and that is the purpose of the case.

Unfortunately, we cannot resolve this difference because the case book is silent on the critical issue. Pick a way to call it and call it consistently.

I can see your view, too . . . one could start drawing parallels to the player who is fouled while trying to shoot one kind of shot and eventually gets off some other shot -- at what point is it still the same shot that counts if it goes, and when did the first shot end so that it is an irrelevant dead ball shot? I think the way THAT play is actually called would seem to support the view that you and JR take.