Shooting vs. passing after foul

[Adam]

We want players to play through contact because we may not consider it a foul. Good players learn how to adjust to contact, and they learn to do it quickly. When a shooter gets fouled, our whistles are often a bit late (for good reason). I'm not going to penalize a player for adjusting to contact that I may or may not call a foul.

I'm not saying the whole play doesn't matter. On the first video, I'm probably not giving free throws, but I'm also not approaching my partner if he makes the call and judges it differently. I don't approach partners on judgment calls, and this is pure judgment.

Passing the ball after a foul does not necessarily negate the fact that I thought it was a shot.

I recognize others see this differently.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Passing the ball after a foul does not necessarily negate the fact that I thought it was a shot.

I think this is the key. I haven't seen this in so many words in this thread, but if I'm not mistaken officials have posted here that:

"I believe he was attempting a shot, but if he doesn't continue the attempt he still doesn't get free throws."

If this is the case, it has no rules support.

I agree with Jeff that any actual contact on the second play is very difficult to see, but that isn't the point of contention. The movement the player makes is so unnatural that whether he was fouled or simply fumbled the ball on his way up, there's very little doubt in my mind that his original intent was to shoot.

On the first play I'm fine with the no shot call.

Never say never, but unless asked, I would be very unlikely to bring information to a partner about this. I see nothing egregious enough to consider doing so on either of these plays.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think this is the key. I haven't seen this in so many words in this thread, but if I'm not mistaken officials have posted here that:

"I believe he was attempting a shot, but if he doesn't continue the attempt he still doesn't get free throws."

If this is the case, it has no rules support.

Agree. All that matters and all that has any support in the rules is what the player was trying to do at the time of the foul. It is our job to determine that. If we were to automatically default to not awarding a shooting foul, we would not be doing the job we're paid to do.

[TriggerMN]

I'm still trying to find the foul on the first one, and also wondering why we have a triple whistle on a marginal call.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by TriggerMN

I'm still trying to find the foul on the first one, and also wondering why we have a triple whistle on a marginal call.

I agree its marginal and think all three, especially the L, would have been better served with a more patient whistle here.

That said, since we have whistles I think its clearly a non-shooting foul and I like the T giving info and the calling official's decision to change to a spot throw-in based on the info. Good officiating IMO.

The 2nd one is debatable for me. One of the main people who trained me back in the day was pretty adamant that if a player passed the ball we shouldnt award free throws. He would always say, "what did he do? Not what he intended to do, what did he do? He passed the ball so we are not awarding shots." That has always stuck with me and is my default on these plays.

On this play though I have no problem awarding FTs and think I'd likely do so here. Its pretty clear to me that he is going up for the layup when the foul occurs.

Also, why are there two people standing on white's bench?

[Rich]

I think there are two things coming out of this thread:

(1) I think we all know what the rules say. If the player is attempting to shoot and is fouled, we award throws.

(2) There's the "part we can sell" bit. Although I think #2 is one where I could more easily sell a shot attempt, I see Jeff and APG's point, too. If I say, "on the pass" and inbound on the end line, I can easily sell that.

There are exceptions to this. I had a player get fouled under the basket and the foul prevented the player from finishing her shooting motion. The coach was adamant that it was not on the shot, saying, "that didn't even get above her waist!" Well, so what?

I tend to agree. Patient whistle, let the play finish, don't surprise both benches.

Let's look at both plays:

(1) A triple whistle on a play where it would've been nice to see if there was any possession consequence. He always intended to make that pass and he successfully did so. It's not an automatic. Three VERY FAST whistles on a play where I'd hope to see none.

Trail has a horrible angle, center is looking through the back of the defender. Frankly, the only one with a good look is the lead and I'm not sure his posture tells me even he has a good look.

(2) I'm still not sure there's a foul there. The L, giving the tip signal for no reason, lost a step or two in the process. Don't think the C really worked hard to help, either. Whether I award shots here would depend on my first instinct, but again I think the whistle is a bit quick.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

(2) There's the "part we can sell" bit. Although I think #2 is one where I could more easily sell a shot attempt, I see Jeff and APG's point, too. If I say, "on the pass" and inbound on the end line, I can easily sell that.

There are exceptions to this. I had a player get fouled under the basket and the foul prevented the player from finishing her shooting motion. The coach was adamant that it was not on the shot, saying, "that didn't even get above her waist!" Well, so what?

Keep in mind, my point of view on this is strictly the situation in this play. It looks like he could be shooting, but he passed at the end of it. Why do that if you are shooting? Players jump and pass all the time. It is very common in the game today, so why would I be surprised by that action in the end. After all the player was passing to a wide open player as he drew the defense. That is very common. Many times player go at the basket, only to throw the ball to an open shooter in the corner or at the top of the key. So knowing that, what do we have to fall back on? If the player cannot release the ball or gets it knocked out of his hand, then I will give them the benefit of the doubt. But I do not see many times where a player is fouled on a shot and then pass as a result. So I am going with what is likely. Unless I am in the player's head, I will not know for sure, but I know what they did.

I will say this again. This is why I will support anyone's call on this. I might give them information, but it is a regular play in a game and likely did not even deciding the game.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

He would always say, "what did he do? Not what he intended to do, what did he do? "

But this is contrary to the rule. The book tells us that if we think they were shooting when they were fouled ... then it's a shooting foul. What he INTENDED to do, at the moment he was fouled, is most definitely relevant. You were told wrong.

Originally Posted by TriggerMN

I'm still trying to find the foul on the first one, and also wondering why we have a triple whistle on a marginal call.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.