Shoot 2 FT's or ball OOB's

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by MJT
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!!

Sure. Here are two arguments that directly relate to (and refute)the passage above.

1. If he passes it, how can we say he is throwing it for a goal??? Argument #1. You are the one who is not following the rule. You've left out a crucial part of the rule, which I've been trying to explain to you. He doesn't have to throw for goal. He only has to attempt to throw for goal. The attempt is simply the beginning of the throwing motion. Once the throwing motion starts, if he's fouled, then it's in the act of shooting.

2. He is not "throwing or attempting to throw for a goal" if he PASSED the ball. Argument #2. No, obviously he's not attempting to throw for goal once he passes the ball. But he was attempting to shoot if he began the habitual motion which usually preceeds a try.

Now, let me say this. I can't comment on your specific play, b/c I didn't see it to judge whether the shooting motion started. But in your very first post, you said that when he went airborne, you thought he was shooting. If you thought that he started the motion, then you should've given two shots.

[MJT]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Sure. Here are two arguments that directly relate to (and refute)the passage above.

1. If he passes it, how can we say he is throwing it for a goal??? Argument #1. You are the one who is not following the rule. You've left out a crucial part of the rule, which I've been trying to explain to you. He doesn't have to throw for goal. He only has to attempt to throw for goal. The attempt is simply the beginning of the throwing motion. Once the throwing motion starts, if he's fouled, then it's in the act of shooting.

2. He is not "throwing or attempting to throw for a goal" if he PASSED the ball. Argument #2. No, obviously he's not attempting to throw for goal once he passes the ball. But he was attempting to shoot if he began the habitual motion which usually preceeds a try.

Now, let me say this. I can't comment on your specific play, b/c I didn't see it to judge whether the shooting motion started. But in your very first post, you said that when he went airborne, you thought he was shooting. If you thought that he started the motion, then you should've given two shots.

I cannot tell myself that he attempted for a goal when he looked at a teammate and passed the ball.

I did "think" he was probably going to shoot when he first was fouled, but when he changed his mind, so did I.

Not that it makes it right or wrong, but I was curious so I tallied up the "shoots" vs OOB's. With the discussion pretty much over accept for rainmaker, Chuck, and I the votes of those who responded on this board are "5 to shoot" and 9 to take it OOB's. I have demonstrated the play to 4 officials now between yesterday and now, all varsity officials, and they all said "without a doubt, it is OOB's."

I guess we may just have to agree to disagree. It has been an interesting debate. Thanks!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by MJT

Not that it makes it right or wrong, but I was curious so I tallied up the "shoots" vs OOB's. With the discussion pretty much over accept for rainmaker, Chuck, and I the votes of those who responded on this board are "5 to shoot" and 9 to take it OOB's. I have demonstrated the play to 4 officials now between yesterday and now, all varsity officials, and they all said "without a doubt, it is OOB's."

I guess we may just have to agree to disagree. It has been an interesting debate. Thanks!

It may be that if Chuck and I saw it, we'd feel that he hadn't started the shooting motion, and that oob would be correct. I wish you hadn't said that he had started the shooting motion. That's the part that I get stuck on.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

I wish you hadn't said that he had started the shooting motion. That's the part that I get stuck on. [/B][/QUOTE]Why? The bottom line is that it's always your judgement whether the player started a shooting motion or a passing motion. Make up your mind which it is and call the appropriate foul. And don't over-think the play. You get enough people second-guessing you without doing the same thing to yourself.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by MJT
"5 to shoot" and 9 to take it OOB's

If, in my JUDGEMENT, it was a try when I blew the whistle then the player shoots FT's.

So to add to your "scientific poll", add another to the "shoot" count.

BTW, any of you that have played the game know that there have been times when you have gone up for a shot...got fouled...and then passed the ball because you just knew, since you got hammered, the ball was not going to go through the hoop. (This usually happens in a pick-up game with no officials...so why continue with your continuation?)





[Edited by RookieDude on Dec 4th, 2004 at 08:42 AM]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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.

Chuck, maybe you're better at this than me but there are certainly times when I think a play might unfold one way but change my mind once I've allowed it to complete.

As a maybe not so good example, A1 starts his shooting motion and jumps from behind the 3 pt line. As you put up 3 fingers A1 passes the ball to the low post.

You don't stubbornly keep your arm up in this case, do you?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Chuck, maybe you're better at this than me but there are certainly times when I think a play might unfold one way but change my mind once I've allowed it to complete.

You're clearly right that the play does not always unfold as it might at first appear. My only point in this thread is that if you judge that the shooting motion has started, and the player is fouled, then he's been fouled in the act of shooting. Anything that happens after that can't change that fact. The player returns to the floor without getting the shot off -- two FTs. The player dumps off a pass to a teammate -- two FTs.

Once he's been fouled in the act of shooting, he gets FTs, regardless of what happens after the foul.

[BktBallRef]

The pass is of no consequence. As soon as it is evident that you have judged a try, it no longer matters what happens, as the ball is dead when the try ends. He could take it and eat and it wouldn't matter. So when the shot ends, it doesn't matter if he passes, returns to the floor or starts a dribble.

Can't believe this has generated 4 pages of posts.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
The pass is of no consequence. As soon as it is evident that you have judged a try, it no longer matters what happens, as the ball is dead when the try ends. He could take it and eat and it wouldn't matter. So when the shot ends, it doesn't matter if he passes, returns to the floor or starts a dribble.

Can't believe this has generated 4 pages of posts.

Maybe some of us reserve judgement until the play's completed...which gets me back to my first post when I wondered why there might be a whistle at all in this play, or maybe if the whistle in this play might be just a little early.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Maybe some of us reserve judgement until the play's completed...

Judgment was made when the whistle blew.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Judgment was made when the whistle blew.

Maybe, which is why I'm wondering if the whistle could have been held to make a more informed judgement.

Watching the Uconn/IU game?

[BktBallRef]

Watching the Uconn/IU game? [/B]

Somehow, I missed.

Carolina 91
Kentucky 78 F

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Maybe, which is why I'm wondering if the whistle could have been held to make a more informed judgement.

Hm, where have I heard this before?

[BktBallRef]

Just because he's unable to release the shot, it doesn't mean that he wasn't fouled or he isn't in the act os shooting.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Just because he's unable to release the shot, it doesn't mean that he wasn't fouled or he isn't in the act os shooting.

We're not talking about that case.