Count it?

[krampuppy]

Here is the call:

Player A is driving the lane and going in for a shot. Player B is guarding and fouls him with a push. The push causes Player A to take THREE steps and then he shoots and make the shot. Does the shot count?

In our game last night the ref counted the shot and I asked calmly for an explanation. I was told that 'in my estimation the push caused him to take an extra step so I counted the basket'. Isn't traveling always traveling no matter if you get pushed or not? Any explanation would be helpful.

Thanks

[Raymond]

In the situation as you describe it I would wave off the shot and award 2 free throws.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by krampuppy

Here is the call:

Player A is driving the lane and going in for a shot. Player B is guarding and fouls him with a push. The push causes Player A to take THREE steps and then he shoots and make the shot. Does the shot count?

In our game last night the ref counted the shot and I asked calmly for an explanation. I was told that 'in my estimation the push caused him to take an extra step so I counted the basket'. Isn't traveling always traveling no matter if you get pushed or not? Any explanation would be helpful.

Thanks

imo, the official erred.

No basket, two shots.

[ref3808]

Originally Posted by krampuppy

Here is the call:

Player A is driving the lane and going in for a shot. Player B is guarding and fouls him with a push. The push causes Player A to take THREE steps and then he shoots and make the shot. Does the shot count?

In our game last night the ref counted the shot and I asked calmly for an explanation. I was told that 'in my estimation the push caused him to take an extra step so I counted the basket'. Isn't traveling always traveling no matter if you get pushed or not? Any explanation would be helpful.

Thanks

The push causes player A to take three steps, and THEN he shoots and makes the shot. So he was driving the lane when fouled but had not started the shooting motion? Why count the shot?

If he was pushed hard enough maybe intentional foul as well? Was there any play on the ball?

[krampuppy]

The ref called a 'push' it was a body bump that caused the foul and he continued in his motion but traveled before shooting. The ref admitted he took an extra step but said he allowed it because of the foul. My point is that you can't just make up a rule. You only get two steps. PERIOD right?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ref3808

The push causes player A to take three steps, and THEN he shoots and makes the shot. So he was driving the lane when fouled but had not started the shooting motion? Why count the shot?

If he was pushed hard enough maybe intentional foul as well? Was there any play on the ball?

If he is gathering the ball in a habitual motion that starts the act of shooting, it's a shooting foul. However, as described, I would wave off the basket and award two shots.

I'm convinced that many of the officials in this area call a foul "on the floor" when it should really be a shooting foul. The act of shooting doesn't just refer to going up with the ball. Unfortunately, many of the coaches have the same misunderstanding and at least once a week think I'm crazy for awarding shots (or a goal and a shot) on a play that is clearly (within the rules) a foul in the act of shooting.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by krampuppy

The ref called a 'push' it was a body bump that caused the foul and he continued in his motion but traveled before shooting. The ref admitted he took an extra step but said he allowed it because of the foul. My point is that you can't just make up a rule. You only get two steps. PERIOD right?

You only get two steps in the NBA. In high school, if you pick up your pivot foot, you must shoot, pass or call timeout before it is returned to the floor or you have a violation for traveling.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm convinced that many of the officials in this area call a foul "on the floor" when it should really be a shooting foul. The act of shooting doesn't just refer to going up with the ball. Unfortunately, many of the coaches have the same misunderstanding and at least once a week think I'm crazy for awarding shots (or a goal and a shot) on a play that is clearly (within the rules) a foul in the act of shooting.

I wouldn't doubt it. It's the same way around here. I get funny looks and questions too because I call something a shooting foul. I've heard the old "What, is this the NBA?" a couple times this year already.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by krampuppy

The ref called a 'push' it was a body bump that caused the foul and he continued in his motion but traveled before shooting. The ref admitted he took an extra step but said he allowed it because of the foul. My point is that you can't just make up a rule. You only get two steps. PERIOD right?

Coach, don't think in terms of "two steps." Think in terms of which foot is the pivot foot, that's how the rule is worded.

And I agree, I would have waved off the shot and awarded two free throws.

[ref3808]

I'm reading driving the lane as not yet being in the act of shooting. Could it not just as easily be a drive and dish off? The situation wasn't written as fouled in the act of shooting.

Anyway, most of us appear to be of similar mind, no basket - two shots.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref3808

I'm reading driving the lane as not yet being in the act of shooting. Could it not just as easily be a drive and dish off? The situation wasn't written as fouled in the act of shooting.

Anyway, most of us appear to be of similar mind, no basket - two shots.

If the player had gather the ball when he was fouled, he most likely had begun his shooting motion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ref3808

I'm reading driving the lane as not yet being in the act of shooting. Could it not just as easily be a drive and dish off? The situation wasn't written as fouled in the act of shooting.

Anyway, most of us appear to be of similar mind, no basket - two shots.

If the player was 5' 2" and his 6' 8" postman was wide open under the basket I might judge he was passing.

But if it's Gilbert Arenas or George Gervin, then shot all the way.

[ref3808]

I get it ...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the player was 5' 2" and his 6' 8" postman was wide open under the basket I might judge he was passing.

But if it's Gilbert Arenas or George Gervin, then shot all the way.

If it was Arenas, you might want to make sure he wasn't out of ammo before you make that assumption.

[krampuppy]

Lets just say that for a moment that the player was in the act of shooting but he was bumped which caused him to travel and then make the shot. This is what the referree told me happened. So I asked how can you count the shot if he traveled? The response was 'because he was pushed I gave him an extra step." You can't just change the rules of the game because of a foul... right?