Shooting vs. passing after foul
 

Four years ago when I was a rookie I had a game where a partner called a shooting foul but I saw that the player passed the ball after the contact occurred. Here's the thread.

My initial question was when to bring such information to a partner, but this play sparked a spirited debate of whether to award a player free throws when he appears to be shooting before contact, but after contact happens he passes the ball to a teammate.

I present two of these plays for your consideration. Both happened in the same game. In Play 1 my partner said "you're killing me man" when I brought the info but changed it to OOB. In Play 2 later in the game I also brought information but he ignored it and repeated we were shooting two. What say you guys?

Play 1: https://streamable.com/4b589

Play 2: https://streamable.com/fzv07

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.

The game is about him. Not about the correct call. You embarrassed him once and he didnt want any more of it later. Most guys are not start, develop, finish and decide. They just want to get something quickly. How can he not see the guy didnt shot on either one. All states have a huge number of average referees who they need to work varsity. This guy is no exception. Im surprised the coaches dont go after him. Was he the R? His body language is saying he doesnt want your help and doesnt appreciate. Glad you know how to referee.

You have rules support to call shooting foul if that fits your judgment. But I think if a player passes at the last second, I am not giving them any benefit of the doubt as they could have continued and I would think they were shooting. And part of my announcement at the spot is, "pass off...."

Peace

I would never approach a partner with this information. The fact that he/she judged it to be a shot is sufficient for me, regardless of what a player does after that. If you want to approach it differently (such as the way Rut does), go for it. But if my partner comes to me and tells me the ball was passed after the foul, I'll politely thank him for the information and remind him that we have two shots.

I would. It is still their decision and I am only giving them information. Done that before, but it is almost never a big deal either way.

Peace

I think one is an obvious pass. His arms started going up but everything else about it says his intent is pass...and that's what he does. Having said that, the conversation needs to happen just after the call. Once he reports it I'm not coming in to talk unless game is on line at that moment...and then I'm just another referee. If he sticks with calling that a shot it's on him.

Never?? Really? Did you even watch the plays? Do you not want to get the play right? So if you and the coach saw the player pass as in Play 1 and the coach asks you why you didn't help your partner, what would you say?

My third partner and I knew the player had passed and were setting up for the OOB throw-in. The conversation didn't happen until after he reported because that was the first time he signaled two shots.

I think your partner was right both times. The first one it almost appears (it's hard to tell without the ability to zoom in) that the fouler gets part of the shot and it deflects into the other offensive player's hands. The second one he was CLEARLY shooting and only changed his mind after he was knocked over and could no longer shoot.

A lot of unnecessary comments therein. The guy didn't shoot on either one but the difference is the second foul prevented or caused the pass. It is a shooting foul every day and twice on Sunday.

From my comfy seat in the stands, this seems as one of the less consistently called plays in HS. I see plays where the player passes (and seemed to be entirely setting up the pass from the start) get free throws, and the player who gets mugged while trying to release the ball on a shot who then shuffles it away get told he wasn't shooting. And even from the handful of posts above, it is pretty clear there is quite a spectrum of how refs who take this stuff seriously see these plays.

IMHO, the question should be whether the player was in the act of shooting at the moment of the foul -- and it should be entirely irrelevant if the foul causes him to change to a pass. (And yes, I recognize that is not always easy to tell.)

I can't make you see what I see obviously but the player turns corner and his head is turned back to right entire time. Doesn't look at basket. He passes ball and IMO that was his intent the entire time.

I'm not going to wrestle you over it during game but I think it's an obvious pass. Just what I see.

I admit the 1st is harder than the 2nd. The inability to pause the video or zoom makes this tough. So I could be wrong. And Arem's angle is probably WAY better than the videographer's angle.

On the 2nd, I firmly believe his partner was right to discard the added information, and don't think this was a case (as one official above stated) of him not wanting to be shown up a 2nd time. It was a case of him being right.

You can pause the video by clicking on it. Sorry there's no zoom!

Second play was absolutely a shot. Clearly foul made him change his mind. Info I would give right away is give him two. Going up. Looking at video it would ZnEVER cross my mind to say "he passed ball." Unless I missed the original contact of course.

And if he wants the shot, then do nothing but shoot. Getting fouled and then making that decision after the fact is kind of lame to me. If he did not want anyone to think he was passing, then do not pass. We do not need to make this that complicated.

Peace

Excellent - thanks.

There is a frame in the video where he's facing the basket and both arms/hands are facing the basket as well --- and the defender's hand is on ball. At this moment ... he's shooting. An instant later - the ball is heading toward his teammate BEFORE he starts turning his head.

I'm more convinced now than I was before.

I understand why you might give benefit of the doubt the way you say you do ... but he's playing ball --- he doesn't KNOW you're going to call the foul, and has to decide before hearing the whistle if he can still shoot or not. I submit to you that there are cases where he knows, after contact but before whistle, that he can no longer shoot ... and the foul CAUSES the pass instead of the shot.

And the 2nd video is an excellent example of this.

Habitual start of the shooting motion starts when the player gathers the ball. Its gotta be painfully obvious the player is doing something that is not shooting.

I hear what your saying and we are on same page for most part but I wouldn't go quite that far. I grew up being told throw ball to rim if you hear whistle. As a player, I don't always hear whistle or process it. I want to make a play. If I'm going up to shoot like kid in layup play two, defender hits me, I know I can't get my shot off so I react at end and dump it. That's all I'm left with. I see play 2 fit that. Play one is a pass to me.

Then do not pass. It is very simple. You want me to know what is in your head, then do what looks obvious to everyone.

Again, if I am giving shots on plays after the gather and they might not leave the floor or even bring up their arms completely, I am going to not give shots on a clear pass.

Officiating is about survival IMO most of the time. You call what everyone can see. If a coach wants the opposite of everything you see, then I will ask him to tell their player to shoot. If I do not call the foul, then I do not think it was a foul. But a last minute pass to me tells me what you were doing outside of reading your mind, which I cannot do very well. Just ask me fiancée. :)

Peace

I don't use frames often. We don't referee in frames. I think number one is obvious pass watching it live for reasons I've said above. I'm looking st everything, not just arms etc. my arms have to rise to pass. As I said, I'm not going to wrestle you for it unless it is a game changer.

The reason I take this position is because that is what has always worked for me. Never had an issue that I can think of by not awarding shots on a clear pass off. It works for me. I am not telling anyone to do it different. If you make a call, it is your call and you will ultimately have to live with it. On both of these plays, I am calling a common foul. I am good with that choice. If someone wants to award a shot, you are not going to hear my say boo about it.

Peace

Even on the second one?? He has a clear layup. He's going up and guy from behind grabs him. That was never going to be a pass but for the foul. Rule says give him 2 cause foul may prevent ....

I only looked at it that way because I was unsure ... and honestly, I was looking for a reason to convince myself I was wrong, because pretty much everyone else said I was.

But it seemed to support my initial look (posted way up higher before I figured out you could pause)... that the ball was not passed, but deflected to his teammate during the foul.

JRut, I hear you, but if in the second sequence the foulee wasn't going up for a shot (with nobody blocking his path just 3 feet from the basket, mind you), then for me to think he originally was going to pass before the foul, that better be the seriously sick honorary team manager who has just days to live whom he's passing to.

Kids will do stupid things sometimes or make bad assumptions, such as "I might not get the call on that clear shooting foul, so I better dump it off so Coach doesn't get mad at me and take me out."

I'm not penalizing a shooter for passing off after he's fouled in the act of shooting. No matter what he "ought" to have done (i.e. follow through with the shot). The rulebook doesn't say a foul can be called only if there's follow-through on the FGA.

Yes, he passed. If he wants shots, then complete the shot. And if the justification that I am hearing is because he does not know we are going to blow our whistle, that is funny when players think any level of contact entitles them to a foul. So they act like they are fouled all the time. Complete the process and then I will award you without question the shots. If you clearly pass, you are not shooting. And I am not going to try to get deep in your head to figure it out.

Peace

You want me to award you something, act like you know how it is. Guys, I have seen players throw up shots well after the foul as they think they might get a foul. Real ballers understand this and do whatever they can to get the advantage.

Again, I am not going around telling you are even criticizing you for your call. I might give you information on a clear pass, but if you say that was shooting, you can explain that to the coach. Just like when there is a close play where the coach thinks you should not have awarded shots, you can explain what you saw. I think we are making this too complicated.

Peace

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.

I'm with Jeff here. First one's definitely on the pass. Second one is not as clear. I'm not going to my partner on this to give additional information. He saw something that made it a shooting foul, that's good enough for me.

Just not that big a deal to me. Line em up, shoot the throws.

1st is definitely a pass. Second is clearly a shot. That's what I see based on my history. Official on first may not see all. If I'm providing info I'm doing it right away. "That was a pass." Everybody in the gym should know second was going to be a shot but for the foul.

Again, my history/experience is different than everybody else's. Neither one of thes plays is close to me. One is pass, 2 is shot. This is my opinion. The decisions I'd make. Jeff would decide otherwise. The important thing for me is that neither one of us cares who wins your game. We are doing best we can.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Shooting vs. passing after foul
 

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.

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

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.

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

It's an obvious foul and an obvious shooting foul. Not even close.

The term "Obvious" is often subjective. So you think it is obvious and others do not. So I guess we will just have to disagree. And this call is so insignificant in the bigger picture, I am not going to lose sleep over this or any disagreement about this particular play. It is not like the play decided the game. And I doubt the coaches lost any sleep over it as well, either way.

Peace

It was an obvious foul and an obvious shooting foul. Not even close.

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

It was an obvious foul and an obvious shooting foul. Not even close.

You can keep repeating this, it does not make it so. I do not even know who the foul was on and I do not think it is at all obvious from our angle. Now what?

Peace

It was an obvious foul and obvious shooting foul. Not even close. My repeating it doesn't make it so. It is so because it is so. Not from anything I've said.

You can keep repeating this, it does not make it so. I do not even know who the foul was on and I do not think it is at all obvious from our angle. Now what?

Peace

See above

You can keep repeating this, it does not make it so. I do not even know who the foul was on and I do not think it is at all obvious from our angle. Now what?

Peace

It is so because it is so. Not because I said it was so. I give up. I'll stop. We'll let others make their decision.

That is very arrogant to say, because you say so. But again, I disagree. Now what?

Peace

It would be arrogant if I said it is so "because I said so." I didn't say that. I specifically said it isn't so because I said so. it is so because it is so. I will let others decide what they feel is or isn't so...

And I do not care what others decide. I was not asking for a vote. I know what I am going to do and you are making this like other things, very complicated. It is not that hard. It is a play where an official has to make a judgment. Just like the Kansas game last night, there was a judgment made. That play was more obvious. This play shows a player jumping, but passing. Again, I do not know when or who fouled him as there were 2 players there. And still, I am giving a pass if I blew the whistle. And I might tell my partner what I saw. But again, they are big boys, they can decide for themselves what they should call.

Peace

Not hard. Obvious foul, obvious shooting foul.

You can keep repeating this, it does not make it so. I do not even know who the foul was on and I do not think it is at all obvious from our angle. Now what?

Peace

I said I give up.....

I am curious why you are trying to convince me anyway?

Peace

I'm not. You're as hard headed as I am. I just didn't want to let you have last reply. Just goofing off. You win. You are officially a bigger hard head than me..take care...

I am not being hard headed. I have been doing this long enough to make a judgment one way or the other. I think the video is not terribly helpful as I have evaluated many officials, only to have them give me more information by what they say when you ask them about the play. I even said I do not care what you do in this play. You will have to live with your call, just as I will have to do the same.

Peace

I'm not worried about me or you. I just want any younger official who sees this to realize it's clearly a shooting foul. Not even close. They can choose to believe you or me. That is up to them.

That is great, but if I showed this to a room full of officials, you would have a lot of different opinions. I know it, because I show video all the time like this and you get all kinds of opinions. So you can in your noble way try to tell people what to think, there will be someone that tells them to do it another way. Now that is a fact. It is a fact becasue rarely do I have a video like this that is not have a debate on a close play. And on this site people have stated it is not that "obvious."

Peace

No, I really don't think there'd be a lot of different opinions. I've been wrong before but this isn't that close.

No shot on either of the plays...

And yes I would absolutely come in with information. It's on my partner if he/she wants to use it or not.

You must not have done many presentations with video?

Peace

I think second play is 70/30 a shooting foul. But I'll say this, pass was after the whistle and I'll be damned if I'm listening to a partner who was 60 feet away as new trail on a fast break when I'm there on top of it.

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.

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.

Wow, lots of input and debate in this thread. So much so, I feel compelled to provide feedback.

Play 1: The play came from the T so technically wouldn't it be his call? (don't answer, just a thought). I thought it was clear that the kid passed. The L and T refs thought so, as well as ALL of the players. The kid jumped and passed directly to a teammate. With 12 out of 13 people thinking it was a pass, going to the reporting official with that info seems legit to me. I would have preferred that the L, once he sees the T start to go, also take a few steps towards the reporting official.

Play 2: IMO, the player was clearly shooting when the foul both occurred and when it was whistled. Just because a player does not shoot, does not mean it is not a shooting foul. (prime example is when a foul prevents a player from actually being able to shoot).

Again, just my 2 cents, no response requested. This thread is long isn't it, lol.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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

You obviously have not read this post very well. :)

Peace

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.

I'm not awarding shots in either play.

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

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?

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.

We know. :D

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

This is what I take issue with....you will not give two shots if the ball is ultimately passed. You stated this in the post above and also in response to MD Longhorn. I'm certain you can get away with it but that's not using judgment. It's a way for you to avoid making a judgment. You've created a bright line rule for yourself. That may be best.

OK, but if you pass the ball or you shoot the ball, I do not have to guess or assume you were doing something else. By your logic, I should not award shots to a player that is in bad positions to shoot, but a pass would have been better right? That is why this is all judgment. And it is no different when I feel a player has gathered the ball and is shooting, but they never get rid of the ball or jump. I use cues of their behavior when they are fouled to make that ruling.

I actually have not created any line for myself. I just think this is not that hard. What you are suggesting seems hard and makes a lot of other assumptions when the players do what they do. Remember, I guess I did not play enough big time basketball to know what a player is ultimately doing. ;)

Peace

I agree with you.You are much better off not "guessing." (I consider that thinking). Maybe that should be the rule but it isn't.

Here's what you don't get-If I'm hit and hear a whistle and can react I will always throw the ball up. If I'm hit and don't hear whistle, or just don't process it, I want to win, I will make the next best play. Here, that was a dump. Your penalizing the player for thinking because you don't want to.