Whatcha Got?

[DJ]

Could it not be a faked attempt? Did it not fake out the player who violated? It really serves no purpose. If it were called a violation I could easily support the logic of it being a faked attempt as described by rule. I would error on the officials side yet I hear some that would penalize the opponent. I don't think that I can agree with that position. It seems like a pretty extreme pre shot routine. I have seen shooters spin the ball in their hands and practice a shot without the ball but not go through shooting motion and let the ball leave the hand. Sorry I cannot agree that this is not a faked attempt.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by ranjo
....Player comes to the line to shoot two free throws - bounces the ball twice, then stands erect and shoots the ball straight up over her head about 4-6 feet, catches it, bounces it two more times and then takes a normal free throw.

REALLY, YOU GUYS GOT NUTHIN?

Hard to beleive that this is not a fake. Routine or no routine, as described above, this was a shooting motion. How can you not judged that to be a fake attempt. Sure seems this one goes beyond any ritual or superstitious (sp) routine.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Actually Dan would signal a DELAYED violation on the defense.

I stand corrected

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Robmoz
REALLY, YOU GUYS GOT NUTHIN?

Really.

Hard to beleive that this is not a fake.

It's not a fake.

As somebody else pointed out, the players along the lane, can't go in till the ball hits the rim or backboard, so even if she meant to fake, nobody's going to fall for it. She was practicing, not faking.

However, could we call the "practice" shot a FT attempt. A try begins with the habitual motion of the shooter. So it could be argued that in releasing the ball after the habitual motion, she actually took her FT. It was clearly unsuccessful. So she only has one shot left.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Robmoz
REALLY, YOU GUYS GOT NUTHIN?

Hard to beleive that this is not a fake. Routine or no routine, as described above, this was a shooting motion. How can you not judged that to be a fake attempt. Sure seems this one goes beyond any ritual or superstitious (sp) routine.

Call this and you are looking for trouble. Just because you find something in the rulebook, does not mean this is a situation that fits it. The players cannot enter the lane until the ball legally is in the cylinder. If a fake makes them enter the lane on a situation like this, then they were going to violate anyway.

I know I got NUTHIN here. Do not become over officiatious because you read an unusual situation in the rulebook.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
However, could we call the "practice" shot a FT attempt. A try begins with the habitual motion of the shooter. So it could be argued that in releasing the ball after the habitual motion, she actually took her FT. It was clearly unsuccessful. So she only has one shot left.

A bitter and inhuman side of Chuck we rarely see.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
[/B]

It's not a fake.


However, could we call the "practice" shot a FT attempt. A try begins with the habitual motion of the shooter. So it could be argued that in releasing the ball after the habitual motion, she actually took her FT. It was clearly unsuccessful. So she only has one shot left.
[/B][/QUOTE]Can I be there when you call that? Huh? Huh?

[DJ]

It is not a fake? That is one man's opinion!

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Robmoz

REALLY, YOU GUYS GOT NUTHIN?

Hard to beleive that this is not a fake. Routine or no routine, as described above, this was a shooting motion. How can you not judged that to be a fake attempt. Sure seems this one goes beyond any ritual or superstitious (sp) routine.

Lots, well, several, players make a shooting motion , or bring the ball up then stop, before they shoot.

It's official judgment, but I'd have to be damn sure it was a fake before I called it.

[SamIAm]

ranjo, Did you think she was shooting the ball before it went straight up?

Why did the other referee feel the need to inform you of her motion? Was he not sure? And one more question, was this motion coincidental to lane violations?

(I am with you DJ and Robo. Sounds like a fake attempt to me.)

[Edited by SamIAm on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 02:15 PM]

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by JRutledge
The players cannot enter the lane until the ball legally is in the cylinder.

Is this a new rule? I thought they could go in when the ball hit either the rim or the backboard. It can do either without ever being "in the cylinder".

[tjones1]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Is this a new rule? I thought they could go in when the ball hit either the rim or the backboard. It can do either without ever being "in the cylinder".

If it just hits the backboard, don't we have a violation on the shooter?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by tjones1

If it just hits the backboard, don't we have a violation on the shooter?

Yup, but that's irrelevant to the question and answer. The point that Mark was making was that players on the lane can't enter the lane until the ball hits the backboard or the rim. They're too early if they enter when the ball is in the cone but hasn't hit the board or rim yet.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Really.

It's not a fake.

As somebody else pointed out, the players along the lane, can't go in till the ball hits the rim or backboard, so even if she meant to fake, nobody's going to fall for it. She was practicing, not faking.

However, could we call the "practice" shot a FT attempt. A try begins with the habitual motion of the shooter. So it could be argued that in releasing the ball after the habitual motion, she actually took her FT. It was clearly unsuccessful. So she only has one shot left.

I find this explanation easier to swallow than any other. I certainly do not think one would be over officiatious if they considered the "fake" or "missed shot" for the extreme example given in the original sitch....but I cannot have nuthin.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Robmoz
I find this explanation easier to swallow than any other. I certainly do not think one would be over officiatious if they considered the "fake" or "missed shot" for the extreme example given in the original sitch....but I cannot have nuthin.

Rob Chris, if you really think it would not be over-officious to follow my facecious suggestion, then you need to re-think a whole lotta things.

Why can you not take the advice of numerous very experienced and very good officials and "have nuthin"? It's nothing, please believe us.

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 10:17 PM]