Bulls/Cavs- changed call?

[Nevadaref]

Two things:
1. I thought that the foul was clearly prior to the action of shooting, but that is coming from an NFHS and NCAA perspective. The NBA rules on this aspect of the game seem to be different and give the offensive player a more favorable slant. Perhaps by NBA rules he was shooting.

2. I thought that the offensive player traveled after being fouled and prior to releasing the try for goal. Of course, by NBA rules, perhaps he didn't travel.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. I thought that the foul was clearly prior to the action of shooting, but that is coming from an NFHS and NCAA perspective. The NBA rules on this aspect of the game seem to be different and give the offensive player a more favorable slant. Perhaps by NBA rules he was shooting.

I disagree Nevada. The rules are written the same in all 3 codes. They use different words that mean essentially the same thing. The NBA uses "gather" & that is by far the best definition.

I think we should find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to looking for reasons to say "nice try, but take it out & try again."

JMO

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tref

I disagree Nevada. The rules are written the same in all 3 codes. They use different words that mean essentially the same thing. The NBA uses "gather" & that is by far the best definition.

I think we should find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to looking for reasons to say "nice try, but take it out & try again."

JMO

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of that particular play and if our judgment differs that's no big deal.

However, you are not correct about the rules for all three codes being written the same. Simply ending the dribble by gathering the ball does not begin the act of shooting at the NFHS or NCAA levels.
The NBA also has something about "upward movement" iirc, but I'm no expert on the rules at that level, yet I can tell you with certainty that they don't match the other two levels.

Even more importantly the interpretation of the written rules differs at the NFHS and NCAA levels. So how these plays are commonly called is vastly different.

[tref]

I respect that!
But as I sit here looking at the continuous motion rule in all three books, it still means the same thing at all levels to me.

IMO, A1 driving to the basket below the FT line extended, picks up their dribblle & illegal contact occurs. If they dont pass or request a TO & continue with the shot, I like to put em on the line.

[Nevadaref]

Please try something for me and see if it gives you pause to think about your current position. Instead of looking at the definition of continuous motion focus upon the definition of "act of shooting," particularly how it begins. See if there is any discernible difference there amongst the codes.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

I think we should find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to looking for reasons to say "nice try, but take it out & try again."

JMO

And I disagree completely. Just call the damn play without any pre-determination of what the call should be. Simply decide on each individual call whether you felt the shooter was fouled in the act of shooting or not on that particular play. All you're doing is thinking yourself into trouble.

Bad advice.

And that's my opinion.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I disagree completely. Just call the damn play without any pre-determination of what the call should be. Simply decide on each individual call whether you felt the shooter was fouled in the act of shooting or not on that particular play. All you're doing is thinking yourself into trouble.

Bad advice.

And that's my opinion.

His difficulty appears to be that he may not have a solid grasp of exactly what constitutes being in the act of shooting.
I've asked him to research that point.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Simply decide on each individual call whether you felt the shooter was fouled in the act of shooting or not on that particular play. All you're doing is thinking yourself into trouble.

Bad advice.

And that's my opinion.

I understand JR & appreciate the opinion of decision maker! Thats exactly what I do, on each play that a player is fouled on a drive to the hoop, if they dont dribble again, pass or request a TO, they're shooting FTs in my ballgames.

For the record, the TIMING of the whistle is what makes it easier to sell. If you pop upon immediate contact, you'll get some grief. Patient whistles on drives to the bucket are much more easier to sell.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

His difficulty appears to be that he may not have a solid grasp of exactly what constitutes being in the act of shooting.
I've asked him to research that point.

Nevada, I dont have any "difficulties" with the act of shooting & when it begins/ends nor the continuation rule. We just dont see eye to eye, no more no less...

IMHO officials that look for a reason to take the ball out instead of rewarding the player with FTs have the difficulty
Just kidding, I respect your stance but I will keep doing what has been working me & my progression in the craft

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

For the record, the TIMING of the whistle is what makes it easier to sell. If you pop upon immediate contact, you'll get some grief. Patient whistles on drives to the bucket are much more easier to sell.

For the record, I don't agree with that either. If you get the call correct, there is never a need to sell anything. Why do you have to sell any right call? And I could care less if I get some grief. Just deal with what comes up. And personally, I'm always a little bit concerned about any official who does worry about getting some grief. I'm always wondering whether they're gonna be able to make a tough call that they know is gonna bring the house down on their head.

Simply appearing confident in what you are doing is always the best sell imo.

Jmo.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

For the record, I don't agree with that either. If you get the call correct, there is never a need to sell anything. Why do you have to sell any right call?

Have you ever seen a CC go down the toilet because of the officials weak presentation to the table?
Or an IC not be questioned whatsoever because of the officials verbal at the spot & a strong presentation?

Thats what I mean by "selling the call" NOT hopping all over the court & those type of antics.
We have to be believable JR or nobodys gonna buy our act. I've seen "that guy" and boy do they have long nights when nobody is buying their act.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I could care less if I get some grief. Just deal with what comes up. And personally, I'm always a little bit concerned about any official who does worry about getting some grief. I'm always wondering whether they're gonna be able to make a tough call that they know is gonna bring the house down on their head.

Couldn't agree with you more! My swag on the court is, what I DO speaks so loudly that I CANNOT hear what you say.
Meaning, once I pop & indicate 2 shots then the coach/players says "that was late" or "this is not the NBA" I'm going to the table stronger than normal, verbalizing/signaling where he got em & how play will continue in a very professional manner

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Simply appearing confident in what you are doing is always the best sell imo.

Jmo.

Great point! Inner self confidence is the best recipe to sell ourselves & our calls. Is everyone gonna buy our act all the time? NO! For the ones that dont comply or decide to go over the top, well, we have tools to take care of that

That's all I have to say on this. I may need assignments from you someday! lol