Had a debate with my partner 2nt working a HS JV game. Here is the play. Player drives baseline and is about even with the glass. He is fouled as he starts to go up and the foul knocks him a little more behind the glass. I think to myself as I call the foul that he is going up to shoot, but after the whistle he decides he cannot get the shot off anymore so he looks and passes the ball towards a teammate at the elbow. He does all that while in the air. The ball was not knocked out of his hands, he definately passed it towards the elbow. I had the ball OOB's and at our 1/2 time we discussed it. I looked up the definition for shooting 4-40-1 and 4-40-2 and think I was correct.
My partner is convinced that since it looked like he was going to shoot when the foul occured, then he gets 2 FT's even if he decides to pass. Now if he never got the shot off at all, or if he tried, or kind of shot it towards the goal, then 2 FT's for sure. Need some opinions on this one.

Second question. I know this is a technicality, but I want to know how it works. If a player comes over to me as I am the trail official when his teammate is shooting the 1st of two FT's and says "if he makes the 2nd one, we want a TO" does he have to tell me after the 2nd make, or is his asking before the 2nd is ever attempted an allowable request. Like I said, I know it is technicality, I was going to give it to him, of course he missed, but I didn't know if by rule it was correct to do so. Can't really find it in the book.

This is what we get paid the big bucks for -- judgment. If you think he was intending to shoot, and the foul made him change his mind, then he gets two shots. If you think he was intending to pass, it's oob. I personally decided a long time ago to always give the benefit of the doubt in these cases. If there's any chance the player was shooting, I call it a shooting foul. The other coach won't like it -- till it goes his way.

As soon as they tell you they're going to call it, you tell them to just stand there, and then as the ball is passing through the basket, you turn and glare at him, until he says the magic words. Because technically, yes, he needs to say it again. It's good to encourage them to play as close to the letter of the law as possible.

On the other hand, it's hard to claim a pass is a shot.

If A1 drives towards the basket, is fouled and kicks the ball out I can't see myself giving him 2 shots. If he puts it up or is prevented from putting it up I can plead my case and send him to the line.

If he kicks it out...he aint going to the line.
As soon as they tell you they're going to call it, you tell them to just stand there, and then as the ball is passing through the basket, you turn and glare at him, until he says the magic words. Because technically, yes, he needs to say it again. It's good to encourage them to play as close to the letter of the law as possible. [/B][/QUOTE]

Uhhhmmmmm...well, yeah, sure, by the book and all but of course if the coach sez "Dan I want a timeout on the make" I'm not going to make him ask again. Same goes for a player on the floor.

Uhhhmmmmm...well, yeah, sure, by the book and all but of course if the coach sez "Dan I want a timeout on the make" I'm not going to make him ask again. Same goes for a player on the floor.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Dan, buddy - gotta disagree with you on both counts. If the player is fouled after he "begins the continuous motion that usually leads to a shot" and he is fouled while still in that motion, he gets the shooting foul no matter what happens next, since the foul occurred during the shooting motion and that's the test for a shooting foul.

As to the timeout, I tell them to request it when they want it. What happens if the other team yells for a timeout as soon as the free throw goes through? Who gets charged with it if you don't make them request it at the proper time?

Dan, buddy - gotta disagree with you on both counts. If the player is fouled after he "begins the continuous motion that usually leads to a shot" and he is fouled while still in that motion, he gets the shooting foul no matter what happens next, since the foul occurred during the shooting motion.
[/quote][/b]

I don't know about you, but I consider "a continuous motion that leads to a pass" to be a pass.

Call me simple, but there it is. Well then the other team gets the timeout.

Call me simple...

Mark Padgett
What about 4-40-2 which says "A player is trying for a goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement <b>is throwing or attempting to throw for a goal.</b> 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.

Okay, Dan, you're....

Thanks!

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Had this one last year soph prelim game...varsity officials watching..after game in locker room we asked V officials if they had any comments...only comment was related to this play..they asked why 2-shots...I said if not for the foul player would have shot...V comment was b4 deciding 2FT or OOB let play finish...if A1 passes off, then OOB...if A1 looks like trying shot attempt and foul stops A1 and he/she doesn't get shot off then 2FT..V officials said easier to justify 2FT if he doesn't actually get shot off because of foul than if he gets pass off...I guess I can understand this, and I am a little more patient on waiting out end of play B4 awarding 2FTs

Quote:

Second question. I know this is a technicality, but I want to know how it works. If a player comes over to me as I am the trail official when his teammate is shooting the 1st of two FT's and says "if he makes the 2nd one, we want a TO" does he have to tell me after the 2nd make, or is his asking before the 2nd is ever attempted an allowable request. Like I said, I know it is technicality, I was going to give it to him, of course he missed, but I didn't know if by rule it was correct to do so. Can't really find it in the book.

I nod to player okay, then after FT, look at player and make sure he still wants TO, so player needs to signal or ask a second time, then I recognize TO request and grant it.

I deal with younger kids, so maybe this is inappropriate for HS, but why not just say, "I'll look for your timeout signal after the shot"?

Second question. I know this is a technicality, but I want to know how it works. If a player comes over to me as I am the trail official when his teammate is shooting the 1st of two FT's and says "if he makes the 2nd one, we want a TO" does he have to tell me after the 2nd make, or is his asking before the 2nd is ever attempted an allowable request. Like I said, I know it is technicality, I was going to give it to him, of course he missed, but I didn't know if by rule it was correct to do so. Can't really find it in the book.
--------------------------------------------------

This was brought up at our rules interpretation meeting. The point was made to tell them to ask you for the TO when they want it. Your example was given, among other examples, and we were told to say something like, "Okay. If he makes the 2nd one, I'll look at you and you tell me you want a TO." The interpretor's point was that anything could happen between the "first" request and the actual request.

I had another TO scenario in a scrimmage. Team A is bringing the ball up the floor - I'm Trail. As I pass B's bench, Coach B says, "When it's our ball I want a TO". Play continues, Team A scores...I turn to Coach B and say, "You want it?" He says yes and I blow the whistle.

I'm with Rainmaker and Padgett on this one.

1) I have no problem telling the other coach, "he had started his shooting motion... he passed it after he got hammered, but his intent was to shoot."

2) "Yes, I'll be looking for your time-out after this free throw, but you still have to call it." Players and coaches sometimes change their minds and I'm not automatically giving them a time-out that they wanted 15 seconds ago.

Z

I'm not going to change anyone's mind on either of these but that's OK. I'll leave it at this though:

In the first play I'm not so worried about what I tell the coaches. IMO if a player passes the ball out to the perimeter after being fouled on the way to the basket his intent was *clearly* to pass the ball out after getting the defense to collapse on him. (We might wonder why a foul was called at this point anyway but that's another thread.)

As for the timeout sitch - sure anything can happen between the early request & your granting the TO. But again *nothing* might happen as well and in my limited experience nothing is usually what does happen. If something happens - a T, a fight, an earthquake, a power outage, a tornadoe rips the roof off the building or a bird sitting in the rafters poops on the court then yeah, ask the coach if he still wants the timeout.

If nothing happens just ask if wants a 30 or a full & get on with it.

I agree with Dan on both issues.....not that he cares ;)

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 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

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.

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

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

Two statements that make the most sense to me.

<b>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.</b>

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."

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.

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! :D

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....) :)

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

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 <b>he was doing</b> (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.

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!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 <b>throwing or attempting to throw for a goal.</b> 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.

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...

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??

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.

...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]

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.

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.

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..

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!

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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?

Somehow, I missed. :)

Carolina 91
Kentucky 78 F

Hm, where have I heard this before?

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.

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

I didn't over-think the play. When he made a perfectly good pass, I decided he was not getting FT's as a result of his pass.

This makes no sense. If a player if fouled as he starts a jump, you would wait and see if he passes it or shoots it and then blow the whistle for the foul that occured seconds earlier. These young men can jump pretty darn high and stay in the air a long time. When you "definitely" see a foul, you blow your whistle and then continuing action gives you the result of the play.

I am not a "newbee", the whistle was NOT early! I played the game, have watched the game, and officiated the game, and have yet to see this exact play unfold the way it did.

<b> Let's change it around a little. What if a player goes into the air with what you feel is the intent to pass the ball. You call a foul, so he then decides to shoot the ball. It hits the rim, but doesn't go in. Are you going to give him the ball OOB's in that case? </b>

OK, have it your way then. You're not a newbie. It was a great call, maybe the greatest ever. Nothing like this has ever happened before in the entire history of basketball.

Whatever. And keep tootin' that whistle just as fast as you can! You wouldn't want someone to think you missed one.

I didn't over-think the play. When he made a perfectly good pass, I decided he was not getting FT's as a result of his pass.

[/B][/QUOTE]That was my point. Just make up your mind as to whether it's a pass or a shot, and then make your call. No need for one of those great philosophical discussions like "what came first, the chicken or the egg?".

And keep tootin' that whistle just as fast as you can! You wouldn't want someone to think you missed one.
[/B][/QUOTE]Just a thought. I can never remember ever getting my a$$ in trouble by holding off on the whistle a little on any call. Sure can't say that about some of the quick ones I've blown though. Shudder.

Sigh. What if he hadn't been fouled? Would he still have passed the ball, or would he have shot the ball? IF the former, call it a common foul. If the latter, call it a shooting foul.

:)

Ok, I'm done with this discussion. I was defending my point, and you yours, we both had good points. I miss a few every game, did so last night on a ball that went OOB's. I have no problem admitting when I do, but as soon as you turn what has been a good debate into a smart--- session I will not go back and forth anymore.

I do appreciate all the discussion, it is how we learn and improve, but I bow out when it gets personal. If you did not intend it that way, then I apologize. Thanks again!

QUOTE:

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....


------------

I've disagreed with coaches before and I'll disagree again. Why are we making the call based on what a coach responds anyway?

Shooting foul if there's ANY doubt in my mind.

He changed his mind? You mean AFTER he got fouled? Then you got it wrong. BTW, it's OK to "agree to disagree" but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

My point wasn't to make the call based on what the coach thinks. My point was that it's not that hard to justify giving shots on this play.