Why is it that so many officials call a non shooting foul when a player is clearly beginning the "shooting motion", as it is stated in the FED and NCAA rule books? This would cut down tremendously on the number of "ticky-tack" fouls during the course of a game.

Case in point: A1 delivers a pass in the post to A5. As A5 turns to shoot but has not released the ball, B5 pushes with two hands. "TWEET!!" A5 releases the shot and the ball goes in. Score the goal 'and one', or A ball out of bounds?

Not to be too tautological, but, 4-41-3 says "The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball." You <i>could</i> say that motion began at midcourt on the dribble, since everyone wants to shoot and score, more or less, but that would obviously be stretching the fabric. It's more reasonable to say that the habitually motion is clearly in play when the player picks the ball up from a dribble - just one instance of criterion. In such a case, if the official calls the foul 'on the floor' he or she is probably wrong.

In the case you advance, it <i>sounds like</i> the post player is shooting . . .



[Edited by assignmentmaker on Feb 1st, 2006 at 05:59 PM]

Pretty much. The whole play was pretty clear until the basket was wiped out. Couldn't figure out why the official called it on the floor... He offered to the coach that he was pushed before releasing the shot, although he was clearly into the shooting motion.

Not knowing when the official saw the contact that resulted in a foul, it is difficult to second guess the official, in most circumstances. Not that some won't try anyway.

Official may have had a patient whistle and was actually calling a push that occured just before or as A5 received the pass, but the action was so quick that it appeared from a distance the he was calling a foul on an act that occured on the turn to the basket.

The shooting motion is about as discretionary as it gets.
Proof: Don't forget about the pump fake - and don't get fooled (or should you) into a player "in the act" of shooting.

For me the most import components of "in the act" means
1) reasonably positioned towards the basket,
2) ball under control by player,
3) head up or coming up,
4) eyes searching for the goal.

Seems to work in this potentially tough call

Perhaps but why? Why take a player out of an advantageous position and call such a foul? If you're going to have a patient whistle, then give the shooter the opportunity to complete his move, then call the foul. Don't penalize him by blowing the foul just before or as he makes his move.

Ref Daddy has a good list. I would agree we as officials probably don't reward the offense often enough for being in the shooting motion. In the original situation, if the post player has turned to shoot, it seems realistic he is in the shooting motion. Sometimes on these post plays the foul could be contact on the catch of the pass BEFORE he turns, so a non-shooting foul is correct. While I'm not advocating high school officials go to the extremes in the NBA, I think we should take a good look at the play and make a proper determination of when the shooting motion starts.

It could be because we don't want to be accused of the 'continuation' foul of the NBA. It's all subjective, but the above-mentioned list is a good start to think about the situation.

I agree with all the previous posts, but add that if you're going to call it before the shot, "on the floor", non-shooting, then you have to sell it real well, with hands waving and verbal, "no shot, no shot."

>>A5 turns to shoot but has not released the ball,<<

Remember, whether the ball has been released has no bearing on whether the ball handler was in the act of shooting. 4.41.1-2.