Shooting vs. passing after foul

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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

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

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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:

"A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three by throwing the ball into a team's own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball."

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

[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?