OK, you keep referencing the rule. What does the rule actually say? Since you are so stuck on the rule. Let us see the rule? Because I do not see that I suggested anything the actual rule says.

Peace

No, you have not suggested anything the rule says. Again, I agree with you.

Do you apply this in reverse? Player leaves his feet to pass and gets hit so he tosses it up toward the hoop. Shooting foul?

Jeff, you know the rule as well as anyone. The rule is that we have to judge whether it's a shot or not. There's nothing more substantive than that, so there's no reason to deflect the discussion here.

You've determined that if a player ends up passing, no matter what was happening before and when he got fouled, you're not granting free throws. Others (me) have stated that if we judge he was shooting at the time he was fouled, what happens after really doesn't matter.

If it's hard to tell (and honestly it is sometimes), then I will use the final action to make that call. The first play fits this, the second does not to me.

Now that I seen the video so I can say one thing for sure, some of y'all are horrible at describing action.

Play 1: obvious pass... I would offer that information also. Weather not he takes it is up to him. But it is definitely a play I would talk about in a locker room, especially with multiple whistles on it.

Play 2: hard to say. But considering he called the first play a shot, at least he's consistent. I would offer no information on the second play because he had that play all to himself.

The second play I would have no problem if he considered it a shot. But that first play needs to be talked about by the crew.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Because there is actually not a rule, there is an interpretation. ;)

The rule only really says when you can consider the start of the act of shooting. The interpretation is the only thing that makes this muddy and even then it still says that the official is to use their judgment.

Peace

I did not say "No matter what happens" as my point of view on this. But if I think a player is shooting, then they better do all the things that look like a shot IMO. And nothing in the rule says otherwise. Everything in the rule is about judgment. And when you say it fits, then I have to ask you why does this fit? I called a foul this year for a dribble drive that took place at the basket and the player passed to an open 3 point shooter. The same player did this several times and I had no idea what he was doing until he passed the ball from under the basket.

I am looking at 4-41-2 says:

Now the rule says clearly this is "in the official's judgment." It also clearly says the ball does not have to leave the player's hand, but in this specific case, the ball left their hand. They passed the ball. So not only in my judgment was he passing, the ball left his hand. Now if the ball did not leave his hand, then maybe we have a different consideration.

Peace

My $.02. I'm calling whichever is more believable. I wouldn't have a whistle on either. If I was the calling official I would first ask what does the C on a play pulling away from him down the opposite side of the paint have a "look" or opinion.

On the second one I may think it's cute that you have an opinion from 60 feet away.

Help me on black and white calls, oob, did the ball go in the basket. Don't help me on judgement. We can talk about it in the locker. I can come to you for help as in ask you did you have a look and do you think it's shooting or a pass.

Nothing worse than offering unnecessary help. Giving coaches extra ammo.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

So if they don't throw it up it doesn't "look like a shot." And will never be one for you. You've said it multiple times. And So, you in your infinite wisdom, view this play as the same as a kick out for a 3. That speaks volumes....Again, I'm sure you can and have gotten away with it but that's not judgment.

As you said in an earlier post , refereeing is about "surviving" for you. Take the easy way out.

You say what I have "gotten away with" as if I have had a lot of complaining if any about not giving shots on a pass. If anything, I get more crap about shooter being in the act of shooting and giving them shots. So I am not sure what anyone is "getting away with..." as you suggest.

Peace

[QUOTE=JRutledge;996493]You say what I have "gotten away with" as if I have had a lot of complaining if any about not giving shots on a pass. If anything, I get more crap about shooter being in the act of shooting and giving them shots. So I am not sure what anyone is "getting away with..."

Uh, sounds like you do what is easiest to avoid complaints. Player passed it in end so I can always say non shooting. Takes a little courage to go against the grain.

You are absolutely right that somebody has to give info on whether ball went in or not. If I'm lead and center and I double up on call the trail has to know what happened to ball.
Now, I don't care what you want or not...if I see a play like number 2 I'm going to tell you before you report give him 2. You will or won't agree. I won't fight you over it 99 percent of time. If this play, number 2, happens at crunch time and you say it was on the pass there will be a wrestling match. Again, I can't make anybody see what I see.

APG, I want to hear from you. Why are you not giving 2 on second play.

Famous last words, "I was at a camp", A1 drove to the basket and clearly was fouled on a pass attempt going up in the lane so I called a non-shooting foul; an evaluator ask why it was not a shooting foul and I explained what I saw; I was informed that all players in the lane should be considered in the act of shooting and it should be a shooting foul.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

*Wow, really just because they're in-the-lane? That is quite an "absolute" dogma to use as a "decision-making path" when you are adjudicating the consequence of a live game action.
Nevertheless, these "either vs. or" type of plays are what adds good challenges to our officiating work.

If you feel so strongly on a judgement call I'll give it up to you. I'll also give up handling the coach and the fallout to you as well. So you should be ready to accept those responsibilities. I would never question a partners judgement call during a game. He saw the play that I saw from a different perspective. I would also black line such a partner.

I'm guessing from the OP when the partner said "you're killing me" it probably because he has an opinion on more judgement calls than most (which is any number greater than 0) during play.

The video quality isn't that great but I would submit that in any basketball game ever played if there is a triple whistle on the same contact, it's probably a foul.

You said you were wondering why the triple whistle. Pretty simple, it's near the intersection of three primary coverage areas. If we had to pick only 1 primary this is Trail because the defender who fouls was the primary defender on the ballhandler who was in Trails area and when the defender gets beat the defender is on the side of the ball handler nearest the Trail. You could argue that this Slots play because it is going away from the Trail, but this play is waaaay too far for Lead to have a whistle. Lead has better things to look at.

Not when none of the whistles even approach patient. There was contact, sure, but contact does not mean there was a foul.

Nor did 2 of the 3 have open looks.

Jeff, take away all of the disagreement about semantics, and your insistence on saying that since this is a judgement call, you can do whatever you want.

It really boils down to this.

You have pretty steadfastly told us that if IN YOUR JUDGEMENT the player was shooting at the moment he got fouled, but then because he was fouled and could no longer shoot, decided to pass, you are not giving him shots.

I don't want to speak for everyone else ... but it seems to me that this is very much against the way the rule (or interp) reads. And the idea you seem to be pushing ... that because he DID pass he must have been passing when fouled ... is simply incorrect.

It is...but he is so invested in that conclusion, he will be unwilling to adjust to what everyone else is telling him.

You obviously have not been around me officiating I see. Yes, I am really trying to worry about what some coach thinks that did not prevent me from getting to any level of officiating. :D Let me laugh at that one.

What I do is because I feel that is the right thing to do and supported by the rule. If you disagree, well I think I have enough officiating acumen to handle the situation if you disagree. Life and officiating is too short to worry about what officials that have no say over anything I do think about my issue and certainly have nothing to do with what coaches might say. Again it is a judgment call and if you feel you can do what you want, then do it. I am not going to be the one hiring you either way.

Peace

You realize that there is someone that works higher than me in level agrees with me on this topic right? You realize I was not the only person that was adament about my position, but you just choose not to either read their position or go after them. So either way it goes, I am not alone. Not only am I not alone on this, this is what is taught by many officials across the country. And so what you think the rule says or does not say, really does not matter at this point and at this stage of my personal career as no one but people on this site, in this particular conversation have ever questioned my position. I have even gone to partners and given them information and they changed it. The only thing that we discuss is that at the end of the day, it is your call to make based on what you saw. In both of these cases, I see a pass off. I have no reason to feel otherwise. And I see nothing in the rules that says that I am supposed to assume they were doing one thing when fouled. The rule only says that it is a judgment call for if the official feels a player is shooting or not. Well, they are telling us what they are doing when they either complete the motion or the do something else. I think I have seen enough basketball where players do all kinds of things. Fouls usually do not drastically change their motion or actions if they are shooting or if they are passing. Just like officials call fouls because the player "sells" the contact, well if you want me to award you a shot, then continue as if that was something you were doing all along. It is really not that difficult. But some people always make simple things difficult in officiating.

Peace

Actually, I'm sure you do ok officiating. You don't speak much, if at all, then. The problem is when you open your mouth. You've proven that here, over and over and over....