Shooting vs. passing after foul

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The justification is that the rule says the foul may prevent shot. Play two is as clear an example as well ever see. He's grabbed, he can't complete it. All he's left with is dumping. Your answer tells me you've never really played the game at any significant level if you don't understand that. I've been mugged going to hole, going up to shoot bumped behind backboard. All I'm left with is dumping to another player.

And still a judgment call. You make the ruling you want to make. I am not against what you saw. I am telling you what I am going to do.

Actually I did play. I played a lot. I have also officiated some time and players often assume they are fouled or flailing after any contact all the time, even when they are not even fouled. So if this player passed, then that is what he is doing. It is not that hard man!!!

I think some of you want to prove you know the rule and that is the basis for many of these conversations. Because I rarely ever see someone award shots on a clear pass. Heck we have a hard time seeing officials award shots when they were shooting and love to say, "On the floor" if the players did not jump yet.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And still a judgment call. You make the ruling you want to make. I am not against what you saw. I am telling you what I am going to do.

Actually I did play. I played a lot. I have also officiated some time and players often assume they are fouled or flailing after any contact all the time, even when they are not even fouled. So if this player passed, then that is what he is doing. It is not that hard man!!!

I think some of you want to prove you know the rule and that is the basis for many of these conversations. Because I rarely ever see someone award shots on a clear pass. Heck we have a hard time seeing officials award shots when they were shooting and love to say, "On the floor" if the players did not jump yet.

Peace

The kid had a wide open lay up and then was grabbed, Passed because of foul. It's not Rocket science. It isn't even close.

[Rich]

I'm learning on this thread....that I need to "play at a high level" to be a decent official. Perhaps I should simply pack it in.

Nah, just kidding. I find that whole line of reasoning a bunch of hooey.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm learning on this thread....that I need to "play at a high level" to be a decent official. Perhaps I should simply pack it in.

Nah, just kidding. I find that whole line of reasoning a bunch of hooey.

All of us are in trouble if that is the logic. Very few officials (if any) at the D1 level or the NBA ever played at that level.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm learning on this thread....that I need to "play at a high level" to be a decent official. Perhaps I should simply pack it in.

Nah, just kidding. I find that whole line of reasoning a bunch of hooey.

Well Rich, show me where that was said? If you think a player who passes ball after contact always does of his own volition(the contact is not a factor) then you haven't played enough. You pick the level. You should realize it by watching plays. This one is an obvious example.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Well Rich, show me where that was said? If you think a player who passes ball after contact always does of his own volition(the contact is not a factor) then you haven't played enough. You pick the level. You should realize it by watching plays. This one is an obvious example.

If it's close, I'm going with what is easiest to sell.

I don't think the second one is particularly close.

Your post implies that disagreeing on #2 means someone hasn't played at a high level. My point is that the level you PLAYED at is irrelevant to how well you officiate plays. I've worked with a few former D1 athletes who couldn't ref themselves out of a wet paper bag.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

If it's close, I'm going with what is easiest to sell.

I don't think the second one is particularly close.

Which side are you on? I think it's clear the foul causes the dump. I think second is obviously 2 shots.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Which side are you on? I think it's clear the foul causes the dump. I think second is obviously 2 shots.

I agree with you.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

If it's close, I'm going with what is easiest to sell.

I don't think the second one is particularly close.

Your post implies that disagreeing on #2 means someone hasn't played at a high level. My point is that the level you PLAYED at is irrelevant to how well you officiate plays. I've worked with a few former D1 athletes who couldn't ref themselves out of a wet paper bag.

Jeff has unequivocally said that if a player after contact dumps the ball to a teammate it will always be a pass. That ignores the rule and the reality. As I said, pick a level. Contact can and has made many players in act and intending to shoot, dump. Again, saying a player who ends up dumping is always making a pass is simply wrong. Play 2 is obvious shot. I'll leave it to each here to decide what side they come down on.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Jeff has unequivocally said that if a player after contact dumps the ball to a teammate it will always be a pass. That ignores the rule and the reality. As I said, pick a level. Contact can and has made many players in act and intending to shoot, dump. Again, saying a player who ends up dumping is always making a pass is simply wrong. Play 2 is obvious shot. I'll leave it to each here to decide what side they come down on.

It does not ignore the rule, it goes against the interpretation for sure. And I do not know many officials that call a lot of interpretations as written either. When you show me the official that calls a foul on the ball handler/shooter and then calls another foul for a "charge" making it a false double foul, that will be a first as well. But that interpretation is also in the casebook but I have yet to see anyone be that technical. You pick the first foul. So to me if a player wants a shooting foul, act like you are shooting. It is that simple. And play #2 is not an obvious shot. Heck you cannot even see where the foul is honestly. I do not know I would have called a foul. The camera is so far away, I cannot tell what the player was doing. But that is me. That is a play that in a camp I would ask about and have the officials justify his call.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The kid had a wide open lay up and then was grabbed, Passed because of foul. It's not Rocket science. It isn't even close.

That is why it is called "judgment."

And I see a lot of more easier plays that officials almost never get right. So why would I worry about this? You are right, it is no rocket science, so why do you keep making it that way?

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why it is called "judgment."

And I see a lot of more easier plays that officials almost never get right. So why would I worry about this? You are right, it is no rocket science, so why do you keep making it that way?

Peace

Because this is such an easy call I'm shocked you aren't giving 2.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Because this is such an easy call I'm shocked you aren't giving 2.

Well be shocked. A player that is shooting usually shoots. Even if they are in a bad position. And many today try to sell the fact they were fouled. I see a pass. If I do not see a pass, I think he is shooting.

Peace