Vid Request- Miami vs Duke

[Raymond]

I would say (and doesn't mean I agree) that the official is ruling there was no upward motion prior to the illegal contact. In fact it was on the downward motion and his judgment is that upward motion constitutes the start of the shooting motion.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is the only thing that could justify not counting the basket. But, as Nevada said, his reaction to that was really late if that is what he is calling.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree. The official makes no movement and doesn't blow the whistle until the player has released a try for goal near the basket. There is no way that he is calling a handchecking foul that occurred 25 feet away from this point when the defender had a foot in the orange part of the U on the court.

He thought that the reach around slap on the edge of the FT lane took place before the act of shooting began. He was incorrect and just missed this call.

Hey, I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. The only other thought that came to mind was he put a whistle on the slap, realized he shouldn't have/didn't want to put a whistle on it, then thought he'd compromise by waving off the shot...all while praying it didn't go in the basket.

Whatever the reason, it didn't look good.

[MechanicGuy]

Bizarre.

I don't even think there's a foul....let alone before the shot.

[Pantherdreams]

My first reaction was that if he's calling that on the ground then he must be late on the arm bar/reach as the drive starts. Though he saw mulitplep touches maybe? Swallowed the whistle and didn't mean to?

After reviewing. Unless he saw the reach/touch as an "automatic" really not enough there IMO to impede the player so I wouldn't be calling it. Which would mean the only other potential foul is on the slap as he would appear to be in his motion to shoot. MIssed call.

[ballgame99]

Yikes. I guess this is why coaches think the player has to be in the air for it to be a shooting foul. That bucket is good all day, everyday.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Bizarre.

I don't even think there's a foul....let alone before the shot.

The more I look at this play the worse it gets. I agree that its likely not a foul at all even though I can understand him thinking there was contact on the swipe at the ball during what was clearly the shooting motion.

But I cannot see a single reason to not score this basket. And again, unless I'm missing something he never puts his fist up either. Just a whistle and waive off.

Also for the record, phrases that IMO we as officials should NEVER use that I hear/see all too often:

On the floor/ground
Over the back
Reach
Dipped his shoulder
Was moving his feet

[BlueDevilRef]

I'll agree with those first three but what is wrong with dipped his shoulder or moving his feet? Need some context as to when you hear them used and what you would say instead.

[deecee]

There is definite contact on the shot but not enough that would rise to the level of a foul. Don't see how this is a non shooting foul.

On the floor is the only acceptable phrase we can use. It conveys information that the foul was not in the act of shooting and that the foul was "on the floor" not "at the rim".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by deecee

There is definite contact on the shot but not enough that would rise to the level of a foul. Don't see how this is a non shooting foul.

On the floor is the only acceptable phrase we can use. It conveys information that the foul was not in the act of shooting and that the foul was "on the floor" not "at the rim".

It perpetuates the myth that only an player who is in the air can be in the act of shooting.

Use "before the shot" or "before the try."

(And, I think the CCA manual for NCAAW still includes the phrase "on the floor." Maybe I'll make a mechanics suggestion for next year.)

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by deecee

There is definite contact on the shot but not enough that would rise to the level of a foul. Don't see how this is a non shooting foul.

On the floor is the only acceptable phrase we can use. It conveys information that the foul was not in the act of shooting and that the foul was "on the floor" not "at the rim".

I thought the foul was on Blue 13. What did the floor do wrong?

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I thought the foul was on Blue 13. What did the floor do wrong?

I'm really glad I swallowed my coffee before I read that . . . and now I'm gonna think about that every time I hear a ref say that . . .

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I thought the foul was on Blue 13. What did the floor do wrong?

The foul was "against" or "committed by" blue 13.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The foul was "against" or "committed by" blue 13.

I personally find "against" to be ambiguous. It could mean the fouler "the foul was charged against the fouler." or the offended player "the foul was made against the offended player."

[fullor30]

To me shooter has gathered ball and is in act of shooting. I'm sure official would like this one back

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

I'll agree with those first three but what is wrong with dipped his shoulder or moving his feet? Need some context as to when you hear them used and what you would say instead.

"Dipped his shoulder" implies that doing so is illegal. Its not. The displacement that can occur when an offensive player dips his shoulder is what we are calling. I hear too many refs simply saying, "he dipped his shoulder" to explain a call when there was no displacement and nothing illegal.

And I also hear officials explaining block calls by saying that the defender was still "moving his feet", which as we all know a defender is allowed to do to maintain LGP. Agree that context is important here but IMO we should get out of the habit of using these phrases at all because they perpetuate myths and unttuths about what is actually legal vs illegal.

Originally Posted by deecee

.
On the floor is the only acceptable phrase we can use. It conveys information that the foul was not in the act of shooting and that the foul was "on the floor" not "at the rim".

I know of a few college and HS assingers who don't want that phrase used at all so to say that its "the only acceptable phrase we can use" is not at all accurate.

A foul does not have to be "at the rim" to be a shooting foul. All we have to say, if anything, is "no shot" or "before the shot." And when explaining to a coach you just indicate that the foul occured before the shooting motion began.

As Bob said its a phrase that, again, perpeutates myth. Just like "over the back."