Shooting vs. passing after foul

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

It is...but he is so invested in that conclusion, he will be unwilling to adjust to what everyone else is telling him.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

You realize that there is someone that works higher than me in level agrees with me on this topic right? You realize I was not the only person that was adament about my position, but you just choose not to either read their position or go after them. So either way it goes, I am not alone. Not only am I not alone on this, this is what is taught by many officials across the country. And so what you think the rule says or does not say, really does not matter at this point and at this stage of my personal career as no one but people on this site, in this particular conversation have ever questioned my position. I have even gone to partners and given them information and they changed it. The only thing that we discuss is that at the end of the day, it is your call to make based on what you saw. In both of these cases, I see a pass off. I have no reason to feel otherwise. And I see nothing in the rules that says that I am supposed to assume they were doing one thing when fouled. The rule only says that it is a judgment call for if the official feels a player is shooting or not. Well, they are telling us what they are doing when they either complete the motion or the do something else. I think I have seen enough basketball where players do all kinds of things. Fouls usually do not drastically change their motion or actions if they are shooting or if they are passing. Just like officials call fouls because the player "sells" the contact, well if you want me to award you a shot, then continue as if that was something you were doing all along. It is really not that difficult. But some people always make simple things difficult in officiating.

Peace