free ttrow violation on the shooter?

[scat03]

score is A 66 B 64. 8 seconds left in the game. B is at the line shooting 2. misses the first. we all know what happens next. B takes the ball in a chest pass motion to hitt the rim for a long rebound. any ref out there call a violation on the shooter for not shooting the ball at the basket in a normal shooting motion like the first shot?

[Robmoz]

Normal? Do we referee the shooters style? He hit the rim did he not?

[scat03]

he clearly had no intention of making a basket , only to hit the rim for the situation. it must be a shot.

[Redhouse]

Have a good time trying to explain that to the coach. Not only are you an official but now you are a shooting instructor and your player is using bad form.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by scat03
any ref out there call a violation on the shooter for not shooting the ball at the basket in a normal shooting motion like the first shot?

Please don't even think about that. There is absolutely no rule support for a violation for this action. None. Do not even think about a violation for this. Ever. Ok? Please. Really. Don't. Promise? Please?

[Camron Rust]

Taking the rules literally, this would be a violation. However, like so many other rules, it's not called literally. In practice, hitting the rim is sufficient.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Taking the rules literally, this would be a violation. However, like so many other rules, it's not called literally. In practice, hitting the rim is sufficient.

what rule would you take literally to mean that this would be a violation....not only would I never call this a violation, I don't see anything that even remotely supports it...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews

what rule would you take literally to mean that this would be a violation....not only would I never call this a violation, I don't see anything that even remotely supports it...

Camron may be referring to the strict definition of a "try" in R4-40-2- "A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score one or two points by throwing the ball into a team's own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for goal". R9-1-3 says the FT shooter has to "throw" within 10 seconds and cause the ball to enter the basket or touch the ring before the FT ends. By the strictest definition, you could probably say that throwing the ball against the ring to try and get a rebound doesn't meet the definition of a "try" in that you are not attempting to score, and therefore you violated R9-1-3. It is a helluva reach but.......

I don't think that even the most anal official around would ever actually use that logic though. Hopefully.

I'm just guessing. Naturally, Camron may have different thoughts.

[rockyroad]

Hey Jr, am I still in charge of this discussion board??? Cause if I am, then I absolutely forbid anyone on this board from ever making this call!! Are we clear on that everyone?? It is verboten!!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Hey Jr, am I still in charge of this discussion board??? Cause if I am, then I absolutely forbid anyone on this board from ever making this call!! Are we clear on that everyone?? It is verboten!!!

You're still in charge, O Mighty One. The armbands aren't in yet, so I can't send them out yet.

You're right. Anybody that would ever actually make that call would have a great future behind them.

PS-did I do good in making Windy disappear? He's over on the General Forum jousting with Rut. That thread may end up beating the baseball thread for longevity. Better there than here!

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by cmathews

what rule would you take literally to mean that this would be a violation....not only would I never call this a violation, I don't see anything that even remotely supports it...

9-1-3 He/she shall throw within 10 seconds, and in such a way that the ball enters the basket or touches the ring before the free throw ends.

4-40-3 The free throw ends when ..when it is certain the try will not be successful....

If taken literally, the FT could end and be a violation if the referee could tell it wasn't going to be sucessful prior to it hitting the rim.

However, as I said earier, this is not how it is applied. Hits the rim = legal FT attempt.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


I don't think that even the most anal official around would ever actually use that logic though. Hopefully.

[/B]

hey where is MTD when we need him LOL just kidding...and I agree Cameron.. hits ring=legal attempt..

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You're still in charge, O Mighty One. The armbands aren't in yet, so I can't send them out yet.

You're right. Anybody that would ever actually make that call would have a great future behind them.

PS-did I do good in making Windy disappear? He's over on the General Forum jousting with Rut. That thread may end up beating the baseball thread for longevity. Better there than here!

You done good...and I headed to General Forum right now!!! Should be fun!

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by rockyroad

You done good...and I headed to General Forum right now!!! Should be fun!

Oh my, JR...those two need a serious time-out. Talk about a major pi$$ing match! "Look, mine went farther than yours!" "Oh yeah? Well I did it with no facial hair, so there!"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
[/B]

Oh my, JR...those two need a serious time-out. Talk about a major pi$$ing match! "Look, mine went farther than yours!" "Oh yeah? Well I did it with no facial hair, so there!" [/B][/QUOTE]Yup, my resume is bigger than your resume!

You probably didn't get to see the posts that Mick has had to make go "bye-bye" already either. The lads are keeping poor ol' Mick a-hopping today.