shooting foul or not?
 

My partner and I had a double whistle on a foul call (we had the same call- he reported it) and i was surprised when he said '2 shots' bc the player passed the ball after the whistle blew (he was in the air when we called the foul). The coach bit%hed and my partner said 'coach there is no way i can tell if he is going to shoot or pass when he leaves his feet'. that satified the coach, but i still think i would've kept the foul on the floor. thoughts?

Not a shooting foul. If he wants the shooting foul, he should have taken a shot.

Totally a judgment call. If he thought the player was in the act, then two shots. If not, ball OOB nearest to spot of the foul. You say he passed the ball after the whistle, well maybe he passed because of the foul...who knows. Judgment call IMO, that's way we get paid the big bucks. ;)

I'm 98% certain that the FED has an interp that this should be a shooting foul if the player was in the act of shooting when the foul happened. What happens after that (the pass) doesn't change this.

I would have called the foul on #32, or whatever number the player who committed the foul happened to be wearing. Why punish the floor for just being there, well below the play. :D

Here's a little tip. Whether a player is on the floor or not has absolutely no impact on whether or not that player had begun the act of shooting.

STOP SAYING ON THE FLOOR!!!! :mad:

Say "before the shot" or "no shot" instead. :)

Your play is great example of why. The foul on your play clearly occurred when the player was airborne. Yet that player may or may not have been in the act of shooting. The location of the player has nothing to do with it.

Rant done. :D