Shooting vs. passing after foul

[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.

[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.

[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