On the shot or not
 

2-man crew, I'm Lead, opposite from table side: A1 drives my side of the lane, parallel on the edge of the lane, after A1 gathers, fouled by B1, and the ball is released so late that it hits the back of the backboard. I call the foul and award 2 shots.
The opposing coach voices,"How can that be on the shot?! It hit the back of the board. It can't be a legit shot!"
I chose to ignore his comment. We proceeded with the free throws. There was no further comment from the coach.
What would you have responded? I thought that my non-response was best, in this instance.

Your Silence Seemed to be Golden
 

"Continuous motion, coach."
If anything.
Sounds like your silence may have sufficed.
Your description matched the definition of continuous motion quite well (4-11).
That said, a coach, in that situation, isn't so much concerned whether or not you got the rule right, only that the situation didn't go in his/her favor.

"During the shooting motion, coach."

"Anytime the player gathers the ball after a dribble, it is a shot."

Peace

Had a kid try the "this isn't the NBA" line on me this summer. When I briefly told him the rule, he turned to his teammate as he headed to line up for the FT, "We're in the NBA today, guys."

I stopped him there, told him to knock it off. "I was talking to my teammate."
"No, you were talking to me through your teammate."

I think your silence is perfect here. His comment about the ball hitting the backboard is complete ignorance to the rule. You got it right, you and your partner know it, and that should be good enough.

As for the OP, I agree that in this case, silence is best. It's like a coach asking how you can have his player commit an OOB violation when he didn't have possession.

It's a dumb question.

Anytime a player gathers and is fouled results in free throws.

'Coach, just because it hit the back of the backboard doesn't mean the player wasn't taking a shot."

How do players ever throw a pass in the games which you officiate?

You are new, so you will learn that this is a gray area, but what you wrote isn't accurate. The start of the act of shooting does not equate to the end of the dribble. The official needs to see some motion that indicates throwing for goal. (That can include pivoting movement.)

My point is that there needs to be more than just gathering the ball after the dribble.

True, but if there is such indication, the shooting motion likely will have started at the gather.

We can have a nice debate about this and likely not come to a consensus, but I'll post the text of the rule and give my opinion of what it means.


Rule 4

SECTION 41 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP

ART. 1 . . .

I think I have been officiating long enough to know when a player might be shooting a shot and passing a ball. But if the two things are not clear, then I will default to the shot. If they do something like at the last minute try to throw a pass it is a pass and not a shooting foul. And that action is usually rare and rarely happens.

And some things are philosophies. I believe and was taught early on in my career by some that officiating is like three legs. One leg is rules knowledge. Another leg is mechanics and the final leg is philosophy.

The "gather" is a philosophy that a lot of people subscribe to and will continue to subscribe to despite this conversation or your reference or interpretation of the rule. There have also have even been visual interpretations from the NF on this issue in their S&I Rulebook.

Now maybe for you this does not suffice and I am OK with that feeling you have. But the reason that people use philosophies is so that they are consistent in their application of a rule and sometimes with their judgment.

Forgive me but after working about 13 games in two days I cannot think of a single time where someone shot the ball and did not first "gather" the ball and move forward towards the basket. What often officials do is to not award shots because the player did not get off the floor, which you have officials say, "On the floor" as their justification for not ruling that a player is in the act of shooting.

Now this term I used is used by many at higher levels. If is not your understanding again, I am OK with that feeling. But there are no rules that are specific to what a habitual motion entails. But it seems like you cannot make that motion until you start to gather the basketball in an attempt to shoot the basketball.

Peace

A Minor Point For Newbies ...
 

Nitpicking for the newbies.

No taps? In thirteen games? Unless prehistoric rules are being used (that will get Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s attention), a player fouled in the act of tapping is treated the same as if he was fouled in the act of shooting, and is awarded free throws. No "gather" on a tap.

4-42-6: A tap shall be considered the same as a try for field goal.

Just want to clear this up for the newbies. I am certain that JRutledge knows the rule.

On this topic...
 

What allowance, if any, does 4-11, continuous motion, permit that is not covered by 4-44, act of shooting?

+1

I agree, when the ball is gathered below the FT line extended on a dribble drive to the basket & a foul by the defense is committed, they are shooting unless they pass or call timeout.

Lets look for a reason to put them on the line instead of looking for a reason to do the old "nice move kid now take it out & try again."

Accurate or not...?

"The NFHS continuation rule is exactly the same as that of the NBA."

Yes, because they were all girl's basketball games. Girls tend to not tap the ball like boys do. They tend to grab the ball and throw the ball at the basket. I do not recall a single tap that you see in a boy's game for the most obvious reasons. They are not near the basket in height. And newbies need to understand that girls basketball is different than boys basketball and the actions in which a girl starts a shot is going to look different than a boy starting a shot. And often is the reason you have people once again say the most dreaded thing in basketball officiating, "On the floor....."

And yes we are not talking about a rebound, we are talking about a player going to the basket off a dribble or a pass. I have never seen a player do that without first gathering the ball. And gathering the ball does not just involve both hands and you never heard me suggest that such action involved both hands. Gather can and does involve one hand. And certainly did not see anything different this weekend.

Peace

That phrase & the "wipe off" makes it tough for partners to offer info doesnt it :rolleyes:

Offer info? How does that work?

The lack of a :D makes me think you're serious.

Well, I don't always use a smiley, but when I do....

I was partly serious, but only on the specifics. I know how to offer info on plays where it's appropriate. Are you saying that you think a partner should offer info on whether a foul should result in free throws?

Are you talking about strictly double whistle scenarios?

Uhh-Ohhh its Monday & I dont feel like smacked around by the forum after my long weekend so I'm gonna plead the 5th.

:D

Sorry, I was just looking for clarification on the sort of situation for which you'd offer assistance. No worries.

I think his question to you was fair. I was thinking something else when you made your comments initially, I now have more questions based on what you have stated since.

If I have ruled that the player was not "shooting" and you come in and tell me they were shooting on the foul, I would be a little puzzled.

Peace

Wow!

APG where you at, maybe they'll believe it if you explain it...

Why don't you explain what you are talking about? I am trying to imagine what you are referencing but for some reason I am not imagining an example that fits.

Peace

Why? As I said, it was a really long weekend, just got back from camp (9 games in 2.5 days, 105 degrees everyday) & I'm not really up for the 7-9 posters that like to jump me just because I share principles that they havent heard yet.

APG knows of many of the principles I speak of & for some reason when he says the same things I say, nobody says boo.

I'll just say it falls under team officiating & I know how the majority of the board feels about THAT. Quite honestly, you use the word "higher levels" so I really thought this was something you were aware of as it has been around for the last 3-4 years...

I think what is being asked of you is simply to tell us the principle that you're discussing. Are you saying that you will offer information to a partner when you disagree with his/her ruling on whether the shooting motion had started? Is that the principle that you're sharing?

Nobody's jumping down your throat. We just don't really know what you're saying.

My standard response is "All he has to do is start the motion, Coach."

To absolutely no one's surprise, I completely agree.

To absolutely no one's surprise, I completely agree. :)

I agree with you on both of those points. On such plays, there is almost ALWAYS a gather before the habitual motion that precedes a try. Very true.

But I think Nevada's point is that it's also possible to have a gather WITHOUT the habitual motion.

And if that's true, then it's not correct by rule to award free throws on the gather. In my experience, the habitual motion usually begins immediately after the gather; nevertheless, it is AFTER the gather.

I think in real time, during a drive to the basket the two occur so quickly that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to gather and then be fouled without starting the act of shooting. But by rule, the gather alone is not sufficient to award the free throws. JMHO.

I worked 13 games this weekend for three (after coming back from a funeral of a close family friend and driving over 3 hours to work on Friday) with some of the best girls basketball that you or I will ever see in one setting. Almost every D1 program you can imagine was in attendance and coaches going nuts from everything to not how to request a timeout to "Google me..." and you are worried about not being able to explain your position? Really dude???

APG is very articulate and points out his positions. I should not have to have him explain something you stated. He is not in this conversation, you are. I just was trying to understand what you meant and I have no reason to think you are not correct. It sounds like you are a little too sensitive.

Well I am just coming off of a month that I worked every day at someone's camp as a clinician and I honestly have no idea what issue that you are trying to make here. And I am sure it is a valid point, but I guess we will never know because you have a stick up your behind and worried about what someone is going to say to you. The sad thing they might say, "Yeah, I can see that."

Peace

All of that is wonderful. But we are not talking about someone gathering the ball to simply hold the ball.

Peace

C'Mon Man
 

I highly doubt it, as it seems like I am 0 for 30 when sharing principles that havent trickled down to the HS level & apparently some small college leagues yet.

As for your negative comments about me as a person, its not that at all. I'm in a great mood & really would like for it to stay this way on a Monday morning after a 7 hr drive home last night.

Me passing on breaking down why its ok for a non-calling official to provide info (the player started his habitual motion) to the calling official when he puts him on the ground as opposed to on the FT line is called being smart by not allowing myself to get caught up in Forum debates that turn sour by name calling due to ignorance.

If you have not heard of a partner telling the calling official "he had him going up" be patient, its coming to a City near you soon. If you dont want to wait, try going to some camps out of your region or at higher levels than you normally attend.
At the end of the day the calling official still has the decision to change it or keep it the same or even worse ask "are you sure." :rolleyes:

Afterall, isnt putting a player on the floor when he should be shooting a misapplication of the rules, by rule? Either that or their judgment is just cloudy or they "think" the players arms have to be moving in an upward motion or whatever that bs myth is.

You certainly would provide info when your partner attempts to shoot FTs on an offensive (PC or TC) foul... wouldnt ya?
When the L administers the FT & says 2 when its really 3 or 1 you would provide info from the C or T... wouldnt ya?
When the AP arrow isnt working or you know the table missed switching it, you would provide that info to official administering the incorrect throw-in (before the throw-in is complete) wouldn't ya?

Just a team officiating concept man. Because they paid for a CREW of 3 that works together not 3 individuals letting each other live & die with incorrect decisions that ruin the GAME.

Exactly, if one has played the game you know when you were on a dribble drive to the basket & gathered the ball below the FT line extended that you were shooting the ball. And if its passed or a timeout is called then its no shots.
After a defender fouls a player who has gathered the ball (on a drive) our job isnt to say well his arms werent moving upward or he didnt look like he was shooting. He was shooting unless he passes the ball is a good rule of thumb.

At the risk of putting words in tref's mouth...one situation that fits what he is talking about would be a spin/curl move into the key toward the C. The C will see the contact and call the foul, but I have often said something along the lines of "We're shooting 2, right partner?" or "You had him going up, right partner?" simply because that is a play that we need to get right. I am not telling my partner what to do/call, just offering information. Majority of the time, partner simply says "Yep" and away we go. On occasion, partner has stopped and asked what I meant and we have gotten it right after a quick discussion. I think that's the kind of thing tref is talking about...

As for the difference between what JRutledge and Nevadaref are saying, imo it is shooting motion if they have gathered the ball while going to the basket. Just gathering the ball isn't enough to put them on the line. My standard response to a coach questioning that call is "2 hands on the ball going to the basket is shooting motion, coach."

Here's what surprised me, you defaulted to a passive-aggressive response. To paraphrase,
"I'm not going to get into it with you fools because you're too stupid and/or old to get it without calling me names."

I don't always agree with you, but I don't think I've ever called you names. And I know you're not that thin-skinned (you've achieved too high a level of officiating for that to be true) that you'd bow out of a debate before you even got started.

Now, for the record, your clarification doesn't seem that bad to me; as long as your added information is made quietly enough not to back your partner into a corner (he may well have had a significant foul before the gather). And while I would prefer this to be done mostly on double-whistle fouls, I can see situations where a single whistle would still work.

Personally, I'm more likely to offer an encouraging, "Are we shooting, Bill?" as opposed to waiting for him to tell me one way or the other.

Since a well respected poster confirmed it, yes that what I was talking about.
Also can occur on an immediate drive from the Cs side where they have the foul but cant see the gather due to positioning. But the L & T can clearly see that it was gathered. I use the same phrases as well. Putting it in the form of a question to allow the calling official to change their mind.

At some point it might be mentioned that the release is not the key.

A guy gathers to shoot, gets hammered, pulls the ball back down as he crashes to the floor. He still gets two shots.

In the OP, what if the guy gets caught in the air behind the board attempting to pass? If he gets fouled, don't bail him out and award shots just because he heaves it up after the contact.

Agreed, with one caveat. If there is any doubt about his intent, like Rut, I'm going with a shot. Fouling a guy on his way down the lane is one thing, but fouling him when he's behind the basket is just bad basketball.

Lot of difference in offering info and being asked for info in this situation. JMO

Free throw percentages being as horrific as I've seen them, I'm sometimes surprised at coaches arguing about this call anyway.

I think that phrasing it that way I did both offers info to your partner and gets confirmation that we are on the same page

No sir, I wasnt referencing you as one that loves to smack me around for saying things they have not heard before.
Rocky co-signed it so I doubt we will hear from them on this :D

On quietly vs loud, I have a mental rolodex of my partners & what they prefer. The ECA (Exclusive Coverage Area) guys I would try to walk by in switching before they get to the table & say it quietly.
Guys that are on board with the program, I'll say it right where I stand because I know they'll say "YEP" without needing to ask & clarify just to reject.

As far as if they had the foul before the gather, they need to call it before the player gets in the act & the ball goes in using some voice to clarify that fact. Making everyone think its an And1 when its really a do over is a sure set up to get the coach, players & crowd all over the crew. That will happen more than enough without the officials doing it to themselves.
So either cal those when they happen or hold the whistle a tad, allowing the player to get in the motion then reward them.

We have to know what animal (level/gender) we are dealing with & I'm learning that we also have to know what type of partner we are dealing with from night to night. As long as the film shows me trying to offer info, I'm okay with a partner rejecting the info & messing up the call consistency. Because when I get a similar play, mine go to the line.

Hahahaha...having me co-sign on something with you is a GREAT way to get smacked around by some of the people on this forum!!:D

Nah just like myself, they respect what you bring to the table!

After lurking on this one I'm glad to say I finally understand what you're talking about. Maybe it's something used in NCAAM because I haven't heard it on the NCAAW side of things, though I plan to ask about it when I head to camp this weekend.

Have fun & do your thing! Let me know what their thoughts are.

Now that I think about it, I was introduced to the principle by a DI/DII womens official a couple years ago.

For the record, I attend camps every year out of state. Not that I need to considering that most of the college I work I work with a D1 official almost every game. Or someone that has had that experience. Save the "You do not understand my level..." crap. Where do you think I have personally met people that have been on this board? It was not on vacation. ;)

I was just looking for your explanation and what you meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Making sure we do not shoot FTs on a TC/PC situation is a lot different than telling a partner what they called. If that was the case every other travel call I would come in and change the call based on the actual rule.

If you paid all that money to attend camps, you also should realize that they hire 3 individuals that can do the job. And if you cannot do the job, they will find someone else that can. This is not like football where we work with the same people all the time. Yes we are a crew, but not where we have to help each other on basic calls on the time.

I just would have been simple if you stated what you were talking about. ;)

Peace

Primarily, we seem to be on the same page. The only thing I would add is that my whistle will (normally) be slow enough that I've seen enough action to judge what his intent was when he got fouled. On most drives, the gather for a layup isn't that different than a gather for a pass, so a slower whistle can help me make the right call. That said, I would grant shots to a player who had merely gathered on this play at the point of the foul, provided he follows that fairly quickly with an attempt at the movements of a shot.

Now, if their running in behind the left tackle, that's different.

Can't Live With Them ...
 

Girls basketball? Enough said. You could have officiated twenty-six girls games and still not observe a single tap, other than the jump balls to start the games, and overtime periods.

Really? NCAAW is where I heard it...

I haven't read past this post yet but it is most definitely appropriate to offer such information. In my case I have offered it more in situations where it was obvious that a player actually passed instead of shooting.

The assumption you make in the bolded segment is what gets you in trouble, not the information itself.

I disagree with Camron and Nevada quite often but it is not b/c I believe I've been exposed to some greater level teachings than they have.

I was in camp this weekend and we discussed when and how to give info (including a play in which a shooting foul was changed to a non-shooting foul) and based on the address listed in our packet one of the clinicians I'm sure is a very, very good friend/mentor of JRut. ;)

What I was thinking, only worded far better.

As I think about it I've heard it from NCAAM officials when I work with them in H.S. games. I've yet to hear it from the NCAAW officials but I'll ask around over the weekend.

Everything which you wrote is good and helps provide quality discussion on this topic. It also probably is exactly what is desired from those in your area at the levels which you work. I'm not going to disagree with you, I will simply express that we may be discussing this point with different target audiences in mind.

To be clear, what I wrote in my previous post was strictly for the HS level.

This being the summer a large number of people are attending camps with college and NBA officals. They are paying good money to hear the instruction and thoughts of those people--what you refer to as philosophies.
The point which I desire to make crystal clear is that those philosophies may be fully appropriate at those levels of play, but can also be fully inappropriate for the local HS game on Friday night.

What concerns me is that people may substitute some of these philosophies for proper rule application. This happens frequently when things "trickle down" from the pro and college levels of play to the HS officials. The point which we have been debating about (when to award FTs and when not to) definitely falls into that area. The pro rules support a certain way of handling this, the college assignors have their specific instruction--such as the PAC-12 issued last year (a desire for more FTs to be awarded), and the HS level has its own standard. There is a danger in taking a philosophy heard at a camp presented by someone from one level and applying that in a game at another level. I've been to several of those clinics/camps and spoken to numerous officials at the NBA, D-league, and NCAA D1 levels. They all have excellent advice to offer. However, one needs to do his/her own thinking and own reading to determine if what was just heard will be useful at the level that individual is working.

Another concern of mine is that just because someone is consistent in calling a play a certain way, doesn't make that person correct or accurate according to the given rules source. A great example of this took place a few years ago when it was obvious that several NCAA officials followed their personal philosophies that a player could not have a legitimate defensive position under the basket and called blocking fouls or nothing, when the correct call per the NCAA rules at that time was a charging foul. This eventually forced the rules committee to change the rule and now the NCAA has a version of the pro arc on the floor near the basket. This was definitely a philosophy that trickled down from the pro game to the college game, which was not supported by the NCAA rules. The danger now is that HS officials are doing exactly what these NCAA officials did a few years ago and ignoring the NFHS rules. That makes things confusing for the players and coaches at the HS level, and the NFHS has even issued a statement that using individual philosophies is improper (POE a couple of seasons ago).

I will just say this.

Everything I do as an official at the college level is pretty much the exact same thing I do at the HS level.

My main college supervisor is also the head clinician and rules interpreter for the state. The things he talks about that we need to do as it relates to calls are the same things he talks about in supervisor meetings.

I understand that people who primarily do HS basketball often think what we do at the college level is completely foreign. Actually almost all the directives from college like the "absolutes" that John Adams has mentioned in the past 3 or 4 seasons have been POEs in NF Rules.

Obviously there are some rules differences, but in basketball there are so minor or insignificant this is on the issue in this discussion. The wording for continuous motion is practically the same between college and HS. Both codes even use the term habitual movement or motion as an example of when the shooting starts.

Also the three leg philosophy is not a college philosophy. It is an officiating philosophy. I learned these years ago from a football official and heard the same thing said in a basketball meeting by another official. The rules are not always adequate to explain what should be done or promote consistency.

I must also make it clear that I am a State Clinician in Basketball as well. All the clinicians in basketball met in April and were given a video about situations and plays and many of the things we discussed and these kinds of things were discussed and philosophies used.

Now we are always going to have people across the country that will go to camps and here things or think that they hear things that are only that they will hear at a camp where they paid a lot of money to attend. Or they will hear something from an NBA official and think it does not apply to the level they are working. The basic game that we see at the NBA level is the same as college basketball, is the same we see at the HS level when it comes to contact and even philosophy with contact. Actually all the directives that the NF have used have been NBA philosophies and applications. Now watching the USA-Brazil game last night I am not sure that FIBA uses those same philosophies, but I digress. ;)

Peace

Eureka!!!
 

Okay,...this weekend at the BE Women's camp team officiating - specifically saying "you had her shooting?" or things like that was discussed and encouraged. The one thing that seemed to be common was it was suggested to do it quietly (when we're switching) which makes sense.

I can't say it happened in any of my five games. One partner did ask me whether I had someone shooting but I'd already yelled "she was going up!" after I called the foul.

I've used that line before. Works every time.

Thanks for the update! Team officiating concepts :)