You make the call.....
 

Late in the game. Team A leads by two points. 2.1 seconds left on the clock, team B is shooting the double bonus. Team B inbounds from the backcourt endline. Pass goes in to B1, who takes two dribbles and then cocks his arm back..... And gets hammered by A1!! Now, do you call two shots (before the shots) or three shots (in the act of shooting)??

I'll tell you how we handled it later.

That's why you get paid the big bucks... to make those critical decisions. :)

I'd have to see it, but it sounds like he was in the act of shooting to me. 3 shots.

Z

It's up to youto judge whether this was a try or a pass -- given the time left, I assume it was a try. Award three shots.

Having said that, I'd support a rule change that a "try" (or maybe just a three-point try) can only be from the front court

I don't know. Not that it happens often, but you'd be adding a new coaching strategy when up by three and the opponent has to launch a last second shot from beyond half-court. Foul the shooter; he would only get two shots.

I award 3 shots. And maybe possession.

Stones.....
 

My 15YO son, whose reffing experience is under 40 games, made this call in a recent game with 1 sec left in the game. Shooting team was down 2, cold blooded 12YO girl swishes first two to send game to OT. They lost by 1 and, after the game, both coaches lauded him for the call because most officials tend to 'Eat Fox' during these situations.
My question is, what if he had assessed an intentional or flagrant. How many FTs?

Thanks

--3 FT's and the ball at the point of foul for an intentional or flagrant personal foul on a 3-point try.

This friend speaks my mind!

If it's (redefined to be) not a try, then there's no need to foul. It would be a live ball going thorugh the basket ==> 2 points.

The three-point shot is "good" for teams that run an offense to get someone open on the outside. I don't think it was intended for "last second desperation heaves". So, I'd either make them not a try, or call it a try but it's only worth two points.

Not a big deal either way, and there have been plenty of chances to change it and no rules code (that I'm aware of) has made the change, so it's not going to happen.

Not sure I agree here.

I believe the 'intent' of the 3 pt shot was not so much to reward teams for moving their game to the perimeter as it was to thrill the fannies in the seats with these types of moments.

In any event I'm not so sure it's been good for the game, we've all been involved in games at many levels where the shooter clanks 3 off the rim before hitting his 2 or 3 for the night.

As long as it goes through before the buzzer sounds.

The answer is.......
 

My partner deemed this play a 'pass'. Player got two shots, if he hits both we go to overtime. The other partner and myself (three-person) wanted to bring him over to confer, but he said "pass" right away. Kid missed the first, made the second. Game over.

After the game, we discussed the play, and came to the conclussion that we should have given three shots on the play, for the sheer stupidity of the p[layer on team A for fouling in that situation!!! :D

Was there any time left on the clock when the FTs were attempted? If not, he should not have shot the 2nd FT, right?

I let him shoot the second, but u're right, second was irrelevant. Summer ball.

I would think with things the way they are today, in this situation many coaches tell their kid to heave up a prayer and hope to get fouled in the process. The shot doesn't have a chance to go in, but if you can get three free throws to make two points, your chances go up. So it would be trading one coaching strategy for the logical opposite. Pick your poison.