Shooting vs. passing after foul

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I think folks who say we shouldn't watch the whole play to determine intent of the shooter and that we must decide at the moment of contact are on one end. I think those who say whatever the contact, it makes no difference, if he dumps it i'll never give him two are on the other end.

I think the answer and the rules require it to be something in the middle of those two.

You again are making this overly simplistic. I think you see the entire play so the entire picture and the result of the contact is obvious. That is why you wait. I would not say whatever the contact is it does not matter. But in the second video, if you wait, it might be clear if he is shooting or the result of the contact. To me the contact is not very clear on the video as I am not sure who contacted him, but he passes the ball the same. He could have shot the ball just the same too.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You again are making this overly simplistic. I think you see the entire play so the entire picture and the result of the contact is obvious. That is why you wait. I would not say whatever the contact is it does not matter. But in the second video, if you wait, it might be clear if he is shooting or the result of the contact. To me the contact is not very clear on the video as I am not sure who contacted him, but he passes the ball the same. He could have shot the ball just the same too.

Peace

We have a player going in for wide open layup, 5 does something, we have a whistle and then, most importantly, we have a player's body react in an unnatural way. Then he dumps to a smaller player in the lane. We weren't there but i think by those facts something clearly happened. The question for me is "did the foul cause the dump?" If the answer is yes i will give him two. It isn't "In spite of the foul COULD he still have shot the ball?" His body reaction immediately after whistle matters a lot to me here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

We have a player going in for wide open layup, 5 does something, we have a whistle and then, most importantly, we have a player's body react in an unnatural way. Then he dumps to a smaller player in the lane. We weren't there but i think by those facts something clearly happened. The question for me is "did the foul cause the dump?" If the answer is yes i will give him two. It isn't "In spite of the foul COULD he still have shot the ball?" His body reaction immediately after whistle matters a lot to me here.

If it was a wide open layup, who was he fouled? I see nothing in the play that suggest he did not assume there was someone defending him. Actually I have seen players move their own body in an unnatural way to help cause contact with a defender and near the basket.

I did not say that he was not fouled at all, just stated that it was unclear who fouled him or to what extent. And I do not see many players dump the ball because they are fouled. Usually they act like they were "hit" more or act like they had to be fouled. That is not what took place here.

And again, this is why it is a judgment call. You act like this makes since and I rarely see a player pass a ball that they did not appear to be trying to do. And right or wrong, there are coaches that teach their players how to act when fouled. I have heard it from coaches when they are fouled out loud. Again this is where experience and judgment intersect.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If it was a wide open layup, who was he fouled? I see nothing in the play that suggest he did not assume there was someone defending him. Actually I have seen players move their own body in an unnatural way to help cause contact with a defender and near the basket.

I did not say that he was not fouled at all, just stated that it was unclear who fouled him or to what extent. And I do not see many players dump the ball because they are fouled. Usually they act like they were "hit" more or act like they had to be fouled. That is not what took place here.

And again, this is why it is a judgment call. You act like this makes since and I rarely see a player pass a ball that they did not appear to be trying to do. And right or wrong, there are coaches that teach their players how to act when fouled. I have heard it from coaches when they are fouled out loud. Again this is where experience and judgment intersect.


Peace

Whatever contact there was came from behind. I don't think he jumped backwards into the air to draw the contact. and if he was faking the contact he's more likely to have thrown the ball up at the rim. I don't think this kid was faking the contact. I think it made him lose balance etc and then dump. Could he still have thrown something up. Likely, but i don't feel the rule requires he do that. The end for me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Whatever contact there was came from behind. I don't think he jumped backwards into the air to draw the contact. and if he was faking the contact he's more likely to have thrown the ball up at the rim. I don't think this kid was faking the contact. I think it made him lose balance etc and then dump. Could he still have thrown something up. Likely, but i don't feel the rule requires he do that. The end for me.

I did not say he jumped back or even did something unnatural on purpose. Just pointing out that your position does not automatically mean you have a foul there. And that is why I said "I am not sure who fouled him" because I am not sure if he got fouled on his arm or on his legs. And that is really not the point, if he was shooting then shoot to make me have no doubt. Also I am not talking about what the rule requires or does not require. My point is that I have a decision to make and I am going with what is likely. He passed. Now you want me to get into his mind and suggest he was not doing something else when I see players pass from that position all the time.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You again are making this overly simplistic. I think you see the entire play so the entire picture and the result of the contact is obvious. That is why you wait. I would not say whatever the contact is it does not matter. But in the second video, if you wait, it might be clear if he is shooting or the result of the contact. To me the contact is not very clear on the video as I am not sure who contacted him, but he passes the ball the same. He could have shot the ball just the same too.

Peace

The official on the court thought the contact was sufficient for a foul. Before he could blow his whistle, the player adjust to the contact by passing instead of shooting. It seems obvious to me that he was planning to shoot when the contact was made, regardless of what he decided to do in the split second between the contact and the whistle (the whistle was quick, quick enough for the player to know a foul would be called).

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I'm comfortable knowing that other officials may judge this differently, but if it's a play I don't even have a whistle on, I'm not offering assistance or information. I'll tell him what I saw if he asks.

On the first play, I'm going to backtrack a bit. I'd likely ask him for clarification due to my assumption that he was going with a non-shooting foul. Everyone had a whistle, so I wouldn't feel my input was unwarranted there.

I also agree with the others that it's contact that could easily have been passed on.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

The official on the court thought the contact was sufficient for a foul. Before he could blow his whistle, the player adjust to the contact by passing instead of shooting. It seems obvious to me that he was planning to shoot when the contact was made, regardless of what he decided to do in the split second between the contact and the whistle (the whistle was quick, quick enough for the player to know a foul would be called).

Never suggested it was not an actual foul. Just stating that how and who and where would factor in to me. Fouled on his arm might change my mind about what he was prevented to do. Fouled on his leg, I might not think anything different. Again, the angle is horrible for our usage. I would ask the official for why they called the foul.

Originally Posted by Adam

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I'm comfortable knowing that other officials may judge this differently, but if it's a play I don't even have a whistle on, I'm not offering assistance or information. I'll tell him what I saw if he asks.

Well I have and would in the future. Just like giving them information about the ball going in the basket. It is up to the calling official to make their ultimate decision.

Originally Posted by Adam

On the first play, I'm going to backtrack a bit. I'd likely ask him for clarification due to my assumption that he was going with a non-shooting foul. Everyone had a whistle, so I wouldn't feel my input was unwarranted there.

I also agree with the others that it's contact that could easily have been passed on.

I feel the same way on that play as the second play. I am not sure it is a foul or not on some level because the angle is so far away and we are possibly blocked from the contact.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if he wants the shot, then do nothing but shoot. Getting fouled and then making that decision after the fact is kind of lame to me. If he did not want anyone to think he was passing, then do not pass. We do not need to make this that complicated.

Peace

This is what I take issue with....you will not give two shots if the ball is ultimately passed. You stated this in the post above and also in response to MD Longhorn. I'm certain you can get away with it but that's not using judgment. It's a way for you to avoid making a judgment. You've created a bright line rule for yourself. That may be best.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

This is what I take issue with....you will not give two shots if the ball is ultimately passed. You stated this in the post above and also in response to MD Longhorn. I'm certain you can get away with it but that's not using judgment. It's a way for you to avoid making a judgment. You've created a bright line rule for yourself. That may be best.

OK, but if you pass the ball or you shoot the ball, I do not have to guess or assume you were doing something else. By your logic, I should not award shots to a player that is in bad positions to shoot, but a pass would have been better right? That is why this is all judgment. And it is no different when I feel a player has gathered the ball and is shooting, but they never get rid of the ball or jump. I use cues of their behavior when they are fouled to make that ruling.

I actually have not created any line for myself. I just think this is not that hard. What you are suggesting seems hard and makes a lot of other assumptions when the players do what they do. Remember, I guess I did not play enough big time basketball to know what a player is ultimately doing.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, but if you pass the ball or you shoot the ball, I do not have to guess or assume you were doing something else.

Peace

I agree with you.You are much better off not "guessing." (I consider that thinking). Maybe that should be the rule but it isn't.

Here's what you don't get-If I'm hit and hear a whistle and can react I will always throw the ball up. If I'm hit and don't hear whistle, or just don't process it, I want to win, I will make the next best play. Here, that was a dump. Your penalizing the player for thinking because you don't want to.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I agree with you.You are much better off not "guessing." (I consider that thinking). Maybe that should be the rule but it isn't.

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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, but if you pass the ball or you shoot the ball, I do not have to guess or assume you were doing something else.

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[Raymond]

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