In the act of shooting?
 

Rookie here still learning the nuances. Boys JV, I was L, had a clear view of a drive coming right at me. A1 goes up for the shot, B1 clearly displaces him. I call the foul, and as I am reporting, HC starts screaming "How can it be 2 shots, he PASSED the ball!!" Yelled it a few times, even as we are starting to administer the FTs.

I admit I did not see the pass, I need to work on my tunnelvision. But only a few minutes later, I realized that what A1 did could be considered a try, since the pass occurred after he was fouled during what I considered the act of shooting.

All opinions welcome!

You simply have to determine if the player was trying to shoot or not.

It's tough, especially for some (me included), but you have to be patient and let the play develop.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

There's a specific case or interp to the effect that "if he was shooting when the foul occurred, it doesn't matter if he passed the ball after that. It's still a shooting foul."

That's why we made the mediocre bucks.... to make judgement calls like this.

Simple rule of thumb... if in doubt, they're shooting.

As you get more experience, you'll be able to be more patient and watch the play develop. It just takes some time.

As for the coach, a quick conversation after you report the foul might be enough: "coach, in my judgement he was attempting a shot when he was fouled"... the bolded part is key.

Also, never have a conversation with a coach before you report the foul, lest you forget the number of the fouling player. I learned this lesson the hard way.

It's your judgment. I may not have ruled the same as you, but I wouldn't tell you that you are wrong based on your judgment.

And I would always prefer for newer officials to err on the side of shooting rather than not shooting.

That's pretty much what happened. He went up for the shot, got fouled, then passed when he realized he was no longer in a good position to shoot.

I avoid the "in my judgement" phrase. My judgement is always under scrutiny by the coaches, players, etal.
I may say "from my view," or "from my side," or "from where I saw the play," he was shooting. That way, the emphasis on our differing opinions of the play is on the differing angles, and my statement somewhat validates his opinion, without telling him he's totally wrong.
I don't want the focus in the verbal interchange with the coach to possibly lead him into a response such as, "Well, your judgement stinks!" . . . or worse.

Talk about splitting hairs. They can just as easily say "You were out of position!". Nothing wrong with saying "in my judgment". They won't like your answer regardless of how you phrase it.

If I get a coach who responds with "your judgement stinks!" (or worse, as you say), he's either getting warned or whacked, depending on what's transpired earlier in the game.

I think they're meaningless words.

"In my judgment, he was shooting."

"He was shooting."

Either way, the coach will argue with you if he feels like it.

That's sort of what I meant, but you said it better.

Although it's wordy, I sometimes say, "I understand what it might have looked like from your side, but from my side ...."

Thanks, Smitty. Your response is the point I expected would be made. As I noted, one's judgement is always under scrutiny. It's not necessary to qualify everything, or anything one says to a coach - the stripes and whistle already set the basis of our authority.
And, as in other relationships, what I don't say and when I don't say it, is often more important than anything I may add to the conversation. . .
Many times, for me, knowing that the coach is testing our relationship, a simple smile and, "Thanks, coach." is all the response I give.

Isn't it assumed that if you say it was during a shot attempt that it's your judgment?

The less words the better. Say too much and you may say the wrong thing.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Good job.

I'll tell a coach he's wrong all night long. My calls aren't opinions, they are what happened. Why would you ever want a coach to think his opinions are legitimate?

To me, his opinions are just opinions. To him, they are fact, or an attempt to manipulate our relationship.
I have all the authority and all the power, that are needed, in the game and my work during that game. I don't surrender any of that by being congenial, within the recognized boundaries of our relationship. And when those boundaries are in question, I can so state, and/or demonstrate, by using the tools I have at my disposal.

A wise person has been quoted as saying, "In any relationship, respect and courtesy are the only things which can be expected. Anything else, has to be earned."

and, "When involved in a disagreement, if possible, allow your adversary a means of escape. When he realizes that you have the advantage, he will probably take it."

Oh dear.

Don't throw out a shoulder patting yourself on the back. Your calls are your opinion of what happened, which may or may not actually be what happened.

"I had it on the shot"

And don't let him scream at you anymore without it being addressed.

OK, thanks. Being my 1st season, never called a T, maybe that could have been my first, or at least a warning (would have been my first warning, too)

try finishing with this line
 

"...and we'll call it the same on your side."

Helps move focus on to the next play.

My calls are exactly what happened. When this stops being the case I'll stop officiating.

The referee has an opinion (judgment) and the coach has an opinion. Unfortunately for the coach, only the referee's judgment matters. In my mind, that is why the formulation "in my judgment" or Bob's lengthier one are valuable -- they contain a reminder that it is a matter of the referee's judgment. Anything we can do as officials to de-escalate tension, in my mind, is a good thing -- we don't need the coach to agree that we "won" the dispute, we need to get the game moving and people doing what we want them to do. (Anyone who finds the coach-referee dynamic a struggle might consider reading Verbal Judo, the Gentle Art of Persuasion, it is written by a former cop and has some interesting strategies on de-escalation and defining what one is trying to achieve in an interaction.)

Oh, please. Your calls are exactly what you see and interpret using your judgment. And they are, for the purposes of the game, the facts. But pretending that you always accurately perceive what happened is naive and arrogant. You've been around long enough to know that sometimes an angle or blocked view or distraction will make you see something wrong.

Mark it. The day stand-up comedy was replaced by internet sit-down material.

I agree with just about all of this. This is my view of most officials so I wouldn't call it arrogant. My margin for error on calls is very small and I usually know when it happens before I see the tape. My point, is when officials blow their whistle, statistically, they are almost always correct. I don't think a margin of error under 5% night in and night out should be called an opinion, especially to a coach. Judgement? Sure. I've never had a call where I was 100% sure, a coach said blah blah blah I'm sending the video, and I ended up being wrong. I'm wrong... all the time, but like most officials, it's rare. Usually when I'm wrong with a coach I will blatantly tell him what I saw and that I didn't get a complete picture of the play.

When I blow my whistle I'm almost always going to be right, just like almost every other official. If the coach wants to start pretending my calls are opinions and therefore all subject to debate, my ears may start tuning them out.

Pretty sure his tongue is somewhere in his cheek.

Was fun while it lasted.

Someone had to tell 'em.

That coach will get a "then why are you asking me about the call?" from me.

I have one supervisor you'll never be able to work for.

Unless you forgot to put blue font in your response.

I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic, and like most of us, blue font never even comes to mind.

I think his head is too far up for his tongue to still be in his cheek.