Shoot 2 FT's or ball OOB's

[JRutledge]

My decision is not made until that player completes their entire motion. If they decide at the last minute to pass the ball away on what looked like a try, I will not award shots (unless we are in the bonus). I agree that often times officials do not award shots enough and make many fouls common fouls instead of shooting fouls. But if a player does not complete their motion to the basket, why give them shots when they did not make it look like they were shooting in the end? I can always go to a coach when he complains and say, "Why did he pass the ball?"

Peace

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
If a player is intending to shoot the ball, he's not going to pass it when he gets fouled. He's going to shoot the ball to try to get the three point play. I agree with Dan, if he proceeds to pass the ball, I doubt he was going to shoot anyway.

My sentiments exactly. His intent all along may have been to draw the defense then pass off to an open teammate - a common offensive tactic. There's no way we can know the player's intent, so we need to base our judgement on what we see, not what we think might have happened.

Take a step back and look at the following objectively & see which makes more sense:

1. Having to explain to the defensive player's coach "I think his intent was to shoot, he only changed it to a pass after he was fouled."
2. Having to explain to the offensive player's coach "Coach, all I saw was a pass. If he wants to go to the line then he needs to actually try to shoot the ball."

This is one of those situations where having a patient whistle can really help you.

[ChuckElias]

My two cents for what they're worth.

I don't care what the player does after the foul.

I don't care what the player intended at the time of the foul.

I only care about what the player was doing at the time of the foul.

If the player was in the act of shooting -- i.e., had started a shooting motion -- when s/he was fouled, then the player shoots two FTs regardless of what happens after that. A pass after the foul does not (in my mind) mean that that the player was not attempting to shoot at the time of the foul.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
My two cents for what they're worth.

I don't care what the player does after the foul.

I don't care what the player intended at the time of the foul.

I only care about what the player was doing at the time of the foul.

If the player was in the act of shooting -- i.e., had started a shooting motion -- when s/he was fouled, then the player shoots two FTs regardless of what happens after that. A pass after the foul does not (in my mind) mean that that the player was not attempting to shoot at the time of the foul.

Thanks Chuck,

My sentiments exactly except that I did not enunciate them nearly as clearly as you did.

Z

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by TimTaylor
Take a step back and look at the following objectively & see which makes more sense:

1. Having to explain to the defensive player's coach "I think his intent was to shoot, he only changed it to a pass after he was fouled."

"Coach, he would have shot, if he hadn't been fouled." Not that difficult of an explanation.

[MJT]

Two statements that make the most sense to me.

I don't know about you, but I consider "a continuous motion that leads to a pass" to be a pass.
and
it's hard to claim a pass is a shot.

I think you are wrong, and will have a hard time explaining to someone, "Well, I know he passed it, but he was going to shoot it."

[Dan_ref]

Gotta admit I wavered when I saw Rut's post.

But after reading Chuck's I'm convinced I'm right on this.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


Gotta admit I wavered when I saw Rut's post.

But after reading Chuck's I'm convinced I'm right on this.

I thought I posted this earlier, but the 2001-2002 (?) Interps, Supplement 1 has this play. It's a shooting foul.

I'll repost the comment from the interp if needed.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I thought I posted this earlier, but the 2001-2002 (?) Interps, Supplement 1 has this play. It's a shooting foul.

I'll repost the comment from the interp if needed.

Yeah, I recalled there was something from the fed on this but I don't agree with it in practice (obviously). (And yes, before others jump in there are other parts of the rule book I ignore as well. )

Anyway, post a link if you have it. I just hope there's not a link to a thread with me taking the OTHER side on this!

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by rainmaker

"Coach, he would have shot, if he hadn't been fouled." Not that difficult of an explanation.

And the coach reasonably asks "Then why did he pass the ball?" How does the official respond..."because he was fouled"? ....to which any coach worth his salt will reply "How can you possibly know that?" It's a circular argument Juulie....

Like I said earlier, we can't judge intent - only actions......far too often I think we, as officials, try to read too much into these situations.

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 that the motion he started was a try, the contact disrupted his shot, and send him to the line. Ditto if there had been contact with the ball or arms/hands that could have caused the ball to be knocked loose, but that wasn't the case - as described it was clearly a controlled attempt to pass.

Officials are not omniscient (although I've met a few that think they are...). We can't make judgements on what if, or what might be, only on what is.

Just my $0.05 (inflation, you know....)

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


Gotta admit I wavered when I saw Rut's post.

But after reading Chuck's I'm convinced I'm right on this.

That is fine with me. The philosophy that I came up with is based on where I live. It is frowned upon in many circles to give shots to a player that clearly pass the ball off. Not to say that is the only way to do it, but it just is not done that way amongst those "in the know." I have just adopted what is acceptable and what I feel is very easy to explain. I have no problem with anyone that does it differently as long as you are consistent and have a good explanation. In my judgment, what a player does ultimately is just as important as what took place at the time of contact.

Peace

[MJT]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
My two cents for what they're worth.

I don't care what the player does after the foul.

I don't care what the player intended at the time of the foul.

I only care about what the player was doing at the time of the foul.

If the player was in the act of shooting -- i.e., had started a shooting motion -- when s/he was fouled, then the player shoots two FTs regardless of what happens after that. A pass after the foul does not (in my mind) mean that that the player was not attempting to shoot at the time of the foul.

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? Why if he intended to shoot, did he not shoot??? 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. I still say NO FT's.

[MJT]

Tim's words above "we can't judge intent - only actions" continuing with "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 that the motion he started was a try, the contact disrupted his shot, and send him to the line. Ditto if there had been contact with the ball or arms/hands that could have caused the ball to be knocked loose, but that wasn't the case - as described it was clearly a controlled attempt to pass. "

Tough to argue with that, and that is what my argument has been all along!!!

[zebraman]

Originally posted by TimTaylor

And the coach reasonably asks "Then why did he pass the ball?" How does the official respond..."because he was fouled"? ....to which any coach worth his salt will reply "How can you possibly know that?" It's a circular argument Juulie....

Like I said earlier, we can't judge intent - only actions......far too often I think we, as officials, try to read too much into these situations.

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 that the motion he started was a try, the contact disrupted his shot, and send him to the line. Ditto if there had been contact with the ball or arms/hands that could have caused the ball to be knocked loose, but that wasn't the case - as described it was clearly a controlled attempt to pass.

Officials are not omniscient (although I've met a few that think they are...). We can't make judgements on what if, or what might be, only on what is.

Just my $0.05 (inflation, you know....)

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

[bgtg19]

Originally posted by MJT
Why if he intended to shoot, did he not shoot???[/B]

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.