Shoot 2 FT's or ball OOB's

[MJT]

Originally posted by zebraman

You're conflicting yourself here. If he hangs onto the ball and you give him shots, you are judging his intent at the time of the foul. He never shot it, so how do you know he was going to?

Officials make calls based on intent and judgment all the time. For example, if a player steps out of bounds, how do you know whether to "play on" or call a technical foul for leaving the floor unauthorized? You judge intent. That's a rare example, but the point is that officials do judge intent all the time.

Z

But there are times it makes sense to judge, and times it does not. This is not one of those time cuz he could have shot it to show what he was doing, if that was what he was doing.

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by zebraman
[/B]

You're conflicting yourself here. If he hangs onto the ball and you give him shots, you are judging his intent at the time of the foul. He never shot it, so how do you know he was going to?

Z [/B][/QUOTE]

Not at all - go back to the original post. Player started what looked like the beginning of a try before contact, but wound up clearly being a pass after the contact. If he didn't complete the release of the ball a case can clearly be made that the foul interrupted the act of shooting based on what did happen - benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter.

It also appears from the description that the whistle might have been a little quick, given the pass was made after the whistle, but while player was still airborne. It's a personal preference, but I prefer a patient whistle in this type of situation - give the play a second or two to develop & things often become much clearer.

[MJT]

Originally posted by TimTaylor

You're conflicting yourself here. If he hangs onto the ball and you give him shots, you are judging his intent at the time of the foul. He never shot it, so how do you know he was going to?

Z [/B]

Not at all - go back to the original post. Player started what looked like the beginning of a try before contact, but wound up clearly being a pass after the contact. If he didn't complete the release of the ball a case can clearly be made that the foul interrupted the act of shooting based on what did happen - benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter.

It also appears from the description that the whistle might have been a little quick, given the pass was made after the whistle, but while player was still airborne. It's a personal preference, but I prefer a patient whistle in this type of situation - give the play a second or two to develop & things often become much clearer. [/B][/QUOTE]

I blew the whistle, and it was not early, it was as soon as he started to jump. He easily had enough time to look and find a teammate to pass to. You see it all the time when a player jumps in the air with no where to go and finds someone to pass it to before he comes down. This is what happened, just a foul on the start of the jump.

[walter]

I agree with letting the play finish in sitch #1 and in that case he passed it so the ball comes in from a spot nearest the foul. As for sitch #2, if the free throw goes in, I blow the whistle and grant the timeout. I don't make 'em ask twice especially when the player told me if the second free throw is made they want a timeout.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by MJT
So you are using your judgement of what he was doing at the time of the foul. If he passes, how do you know that was not what he was doing (your words) all along?

Your question is not at all compelling. I could just as easily ask you how you know that he was passing at the time of the foul. Certainly his pass after the foul is not proof of what he was doing at the time of the foul.

Having said that, I will answer the question. How do I know that he was not passing at the time of the foul? Because I observed him starting the habitual motion that usually preceeds a try. That's all he needs to do to be in the act of shooting. A hand or an arm simply beginning the shooting motion is all it takes to get to the line.

Why if he intended to shoot, did he not shoot???

I can't even take this question seriously, to be honest. It's silly. He didn't shoot b/c he got bumped and couldn't get his shot off. So he does the next best thing, which is to pass to a teammate.

The only way to be sure of what he was doing at the time of the foul is to see what he ends up doing if he is able to continue with his motion.

This is patently false.

"The key to me in the situation as described is that the player clearly passed the ball. If he had even just hung onto it, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt"

Tough to argue with that!!!

Let me give it a shot. A player begins the shooting motion, is fouled, and returns to the floor with the ball. He goes to the line.

A player begins the shooting motion, is fouled, and passes the ball. No shots.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If you judge that the shooting motion started, then the continuation of the motion is irrelevant (unless the ball goes in the basket).

Remember that you're not awarding FTs b/c the player shot the ball and was fouled. You're awarding FTs b/c the player was fouled while attempting to shoot the ball. By rule, all it takes to attempt is to begin the habitual motion.

[MJT]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Your question is not at all compelling. I could just as easily ask you how you know that he was passing at the time of the foul. Certainly his pass after the foul is not proof of what he was doing at the time of the foul.

Having said that, I will answer the question. How do I know that he was not passing at the time of the foul? Because I observed him starting the habitual motion that usually preceeds a try. That's all he needs to do to be in the act of shooting. A hand or an arm simply beginning the shooting motion is all it takes to get to the line.

I can't even take this question seriously, to be honest. It's silly. He didn't shoot b/c he got bumped and couldn't get his shot off. So he does the next best thing, which is to pass to a teammate.

This is patently false.

Let me give it a shot. A player begins the shooting motion, is fouled, and returns to the floor with the ball. He goes to the line.

A player begins the shooting motion, is fouled, and passes the ball. No shots.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If you judge that the shooting motion started, then the continuation of the motion is irrelevant (unless the ball goes in the basket).

Remember that you're not awarding FTs b/c the player shot the ball and was fouled. You're awarding FTs b/c the player was fouled while attempting to shoot the ball. By rule, all it takes to attempt is to begin the habitual motion.

If you think he begins the shooting motion, and is fouled, but passes, maybe he was never going to shoot. If he never gets the shot off, and it "appears" he was going to shoot, then I give him 2 FT's.

I will repeat something I said earlier and still have not heard a good argument to it. Rule 4-40-2 says "A player is trying for a goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for a goal. If he passes it, how can we say he is throwing it for a goal??? This is why I think if he passes it, he "passes" on his FT's as well.

The above RULE is what I think is the best argument for no FT's. He is not "throwing or attempting to throw for a goal" if he PASSED the ball.

PLEASE ARGUE MY POINT ABOVE!! If you cannot, how do you have a leg to stand on??

By the way, how do you quote parts of anothers post, and put your comments inside as was done in mine? Thanks.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bgtg19

The answer to why a player might not end up shooting when they intended to shoot before they got fouled is ... becuase they got fouled. As a player, I can recall starting my shooting motion, getting some contact, not knowing whether the official *will* call the contact a foul, and then dumping off the ball to a teammate as the whistle blew. I usually didn't get to go to the line in this situation, and as soon as I heard the whistle I wished I had continued the shot attempt. I also remember that, as a player, I would start my shooting motion, get some contact that I was sure would draw a whistle, continue the attempt which had no real chance of success but gosh-darn-it-this-way-I-know-I'm-going-to-the-line and ... no whistle. As the other team was headed down court with the ball, I wished I would have dumped the ball off to a teammate instead (well, O.K., what I really wished for was for the official to blow her/his whistle!).

I tend to side with those who think that a player should be awarded the free throws *if* in that official's judgment the player was going to shoot the ball when the foul occurred. Yes, we make judgments all the time. And sometimes we make a mistake. I think I have a pretty good idea about when a player is planning to take a shot or kick it out, but I'm sure that I'm not perfect.

I think both interpretations and judgments are valid and explainable -- but I think the spirit of the rules is to award a player two (or three) free throws if a foul prevents them from making a basket when they were attempting a shot at the time of the foul.

One other point here: there usually is a little lag time between the contact and the whistle and, often, that explains why a player would not continue to shoot (as I earlier said, a player will not know whether s/he will get the whistle). I disagree with whomever suggested a "patient whistle" will work here. I think the whistle needs to be as quick and clear as possible. However, I think that a "patient signal" may be helpful so that you can allow all that happens to inform your judgment before you make the call. [/B]

I think this is a good explanation of what I see and perceive when this play happens in my games. Sometimes, it's not obvious enough to give the benefit of the doubt, but often it's easy to tell. Especially if the shooter has shot from the spot several times before, or if the shooter has a characteristic shooting style that is employed and then suddenly changed half-way through.

The other thing that occurs to me is that this may be a difference between girls and boys. I'm doing mostly girls these days, and it may be that boys are much more likely to follow through with shooting than girls. I'm not sure about this...

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by MJT
The above RULE is what I think is the best argument for no FT's. He is not "throwing or attempting to throw for a goal" if he PASSED the ball.

PLEASE ARGUE MY POINT ABOVE!! If you cannot, how do you have a leg to stand on??

He WAS "attempting to throw for a goal" but before the ball was released, he got bumped, or whacked, or plowed, and there he is in the air off balance with no time to think and believes that if he goes back to the floor with the ball he'll be called for a violation, so he just shanks it off to the side.

Does that answer your question?

[MJT]

Originally posted by rainmaker

He WAS "attempting to throw for a goal" but before the ball was released, he got bumped, or whacked, or plowed, and there he is in the air off balance with no time to think and believes that if he goes back to the floor with the ball he'll be called for a violation, so he just shanks it off to the side.

Does that answer your question?

No, cuz he heard the whistle, looked towards the elbow and totally passed it towards a teammate. It was a good pass that was caught be an opponent. Does that change your opinion??

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by MJT

No, cuz he heard the whistle, looked towards the elbow and totally passed it towards a teammate. It was a good pass that was caught be an opponent. Does that change your opinion??

No, it doesn't. The play was an attempt to throw for a goal. The fact that he was fouled doesn't negate the attempt.

[MJT]

Originally posted by rainmaker

No, it doesn't. The play was an attempt to throw for a goal. The fact that he was fouled doesn't negate the attempt.

It did not meet the definition of a shot attempt! Read all of 4-40-2 which says "A player is trying for a goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for a goal.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by MJT

It did not meet the definition of a shot attempt! Read all of 4-40-2 which says "A player is trying for a goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for a goal.

...and he was attempting to throw for a goal. That's my judgment when I see this play. I judge that he was attempting to throw for a goal. that is in the definition of a shot attempt. It doesn't say that the ball has to actually head out toward the basket or the attempt is meaningless. It says "an attempt" which it was before it was rudely interrupted. Doesn't continuous motion apply here?

I also note that in the original play, the ball handler didn't change his mind about shooting until after the whistle. So the entire decision has to be made based on what happened before the whistle. I don't think it's significant that the player passed after the whistle. I know it's not easy to always see intent, but I th8nk we have to try in this situation. The original ref thought the player was going to shoot. Well, that perception is based on something. Was this a typical continuous motion? Did the dribbler put two hands on the ball and pick it up? Did he jump onto both feet? There's something here that gives an impression to the ref, and those things should be taken into account. If the player had begun the continuous motion, and then he was fouled, then he should get two shots, regardless of what happened to the ball after the whistle.

[Edited by rainmaker on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 06:30 PM]

[MJT]

Originally posted by rainmaker

...and he was attempting to throw for a goal. That's my judgment when I see this play. I judge that he was attempting to throw for a goal. that is in the definition of a shot attempt. It doesn't say that the ball has to actually head out toward the basket or the attempt is meaningless. It says "an attempt" which it was before it was rudely interrupted. Doesn't continuous motion apply here?

[Edited by rainmaker on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 06:25 PM]

I wish you had seen the play. The player consciously turned and passed the ball to a teammate. He did not attempt a goal, but I think he was when he "first" started his motion. I really wish you had seen the play. I described by demonstrating it to another official today and he said he would also had taken the ball OOB's. I wonder if you saw exactly what I saw if you would still say give 2 FT's.
Well, I am off to do a varsity G/B doubleheader. If I see the "exact same" thing 2nt, which is doubtful since this was the 1st I have ever seen like this, I will give them the ball OOB's.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by MJT
I wish you had seen the play. The player consciously turned and passed the ball to a teammate. He did not attempt a goal, but I think he was when he "first" started his motion. I really wish you had seen the play. I described by demonstrating it to another official today and he said he would also had taken the ball OOB's. I wonder if you saw exactly what I saw if you would still say give 2 FT's.

I don't understand how you can say that he was attempting a throw for a goal, and then that he wasn't attempting a throw for a goal. If you thought he was attempting a goal when he first started his motion, -- and those were your words not mine -- then why is it so hard to believe that the whistle blew the play dead, and he just didn't finish? That would still be an attempt, and would merit two shots. I don't understand what you're saying here.

Well, I"m off to a game, also. IT won't be as much fun as yours, though, I expect. It's going to be scrappy, sloppy and hostile. Oh, well. I guess tonight is dues night.

[Kelvin green]

My two cents it was a shot or a pass. Cant be both.

It is easier to explain to a coach why he is getting the ball OOB because he passed than it is to explain to the opposit coach why he is shooting two shots on a pass.

BTW i use this same logic on fast break or other drives after a player has picked up the ball

The player has two options pass or shoot. He did not pass therefore in act of shooting. I have used this philosophy (both ways) in the past 7-8 years and never had a complaint from a coach --- well at least about that..