Shooting vs. passing after foul

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I do not agree with you. So what now? And others in this thread do not seem to agree with you. So now what?

Peace

I'm pretty sure you are the ONLY one not calling number 2 a shooting foul. (OTOH, I seem to be ALMOST the only one calling number 1 a shooting foul)

[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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm pretty sure you are the ONLY one not calling number 2 a shooting foul. (OTOH, I seem to be ALMOST the only one calling number 1 a shooting foul)

You obviously have not read this post very well.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm pretty sure you are the ONLY one not calling number 2 a shooting foul. (OTOH, I seem to be ALMOST the only one calling number 1 a shooting foul)

I'm not awarding shots in either play.

[MD Longhorn]

When I replied to Jeff, I had not yet seen your reply.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by APG

I'm not awarding shots in either play.

I'm guessing the L saw a push -- cause that's the only possible foul I'm seeing on play 2. Was there definitely contact there?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I haven't watched the plays but I'm on the side of watching the entire play. If your foul is one that has an effect I will still call shooting. Because the foul may prevent shot etc.

However, If the foul is minute etc and the entire sequence doesn't look to me that you ever intended to shoot I will call it foul on pass. Fact is I can take ball up and you don't know what my intent is until I do it. If the foul is significant I'll call it shooting. I just disagree with those who say I have to make the decision right at the moment of any contact.

I watched, number 1 is a pass, number two is a shot. Foul clearly caused him to try pass.

Can't see the video at work, but I agree that seeing the whole play is important. It is a judgment call. If A1 is a scorer who shoots every time he gets close to the paint, that factors into the decision-making. If A1 is a 5' 9" PG who gets fouled by 6' 6" B2 while 6' 6" A2 is wide-open cutting down the lane, that plays a part in the decision-making process also.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

When I replied to Jeff, I had not yet seen your reply.

We know.

Peace

[Jesse James]

The kid who passes in this first play is a 30+ scorer going D1, for a terrible high school team, playing another terrible high school team. Funny part is the player had an edict from his coach beginning that losers-bracket game, to get his teammates involved, and not shoot--consequently he never shot the ball the entire first quarter (which is when the play occurred).

Kind of irrelevant as the officials couldn't have known that at the time. But it lends credence to calling the play as its ultimate result, rather than guessing at a player's (or coach's) intent.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Can't see the video at work, but I agree that seeing the whole play is important. It is a judgment call. If A1 is a scorer who shoots every time he gets close to the paint, that factors into the decision-making. If A1 is a 5' 9" PG who gets fouled by 6' 6" B2 while 6' 6" A2 is wide-open cutting down the lane, that plays a part in the decision-making process also.

Yes, What I see in this video is 24 being a half a foot taller than the guy chasing him, the other defender to his left and the offensive player on the other side of the other defender. He's going in to shoot a wide open layup and 5 either pushes or grabs his leg or something. Lead can likely see because the left arm is out to players side when he grabs or pushes. We then see 24 have to readjust his body...and he dumps a wide open layup to a midget on the other side. The way his body reacted means a lot to me here. The foul caused the dump so i will give him two.

I can't really see the contact clearly, but based on the above and the fact that number 5 didn't give the standard "i didn't touch him" reaction, (he knew what he did wrong) I'm pretty confident there was a foul.

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.