Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat
I agree completely. In an ideal world there wouldn't be a whistle because it had no effect on play. But if there is one…that has no effect on play..and then player immediately after whistle dumps it off i think you should consider the dump off. Don't award 2 shots. Otherwise, your calling a foul on a play where there was none, and then, making it worse by giving two shots. A view of the entire play proves it was a pass….Again, why not take into account what the player did with the ball after the phantom whistle to help you figure out what he was doing with the ball at the time of the whistle? that's is my point.
|
I don't think its that black and white. I can't read a players mind but they can't read mine either. If they are going up for a shot leaving their feet/stepping and elevating the ball in what I would normally consider and shooting motion and they get fouled that is shooting foul. What if my patient whistle lets the player feel like the contact isn't going to get called and the shot will now be out of rhythm or off balance and gives up on teh shot because of the contact and passes. I'm not a mind reader. Niether are they. If they are fouled in the act of shooting its shots regardless of whether: they travel after the foul, turn it into a pass, make the hoop. All those things do is determine how many shots on the shooting foul.
By the same token when a player feels contact or hears and whistle and turns it into a shot attempt I'm going to make it the NBA. I'm going back to the point of the initial foul.