After the try ended, so the ball was dead.

It was dead? When did the ball become dead?

I was not aware that we were supposed to take into account action that occurs after the ball is dead in determining what we should have called when it was live. Seems rather arse-backward to me.

So if he puts up a shot as a clear afterthought, it's not a shot. OK, I get that. But if he changes his shot to a pass as a clear afterthought, it's also not a shot? It's THAT that I don't get.

Yes, no cheap trips to the line...still though, it would have to be CLEAR...as in the benefit of the doubt would go to the fouled player that he didn't put up the shot as an afterthought.

He was unable to release on the try, so the try ended. Now, because of the foul, the ball is dead.

He takes away the doubt when he passes the ball. If the ball was lost or there was some real question as to what took place or what they were going to do (e.g. fumbling the ball after contact) then I would award shots. It should not be hard to understand. If the player wants everyone to know what they were doing, then shoot the darn ball. Why is that hard to understand?

Peace

If you are unable to release the try, how are you able to pass the ball?

Peace

Really? You can't envision this possibility? Unless all 4 of his teammates are sitting on the basketball goal - it's completely possible and completely reasonable that the actions by the fouling player prevent you from moving the ball in one direction, but don't prevent you from throwing it in a completely different direction immediately after you realize you can no longer shoot it.

because one never has to gather the ball to make a pass?

That is a crappy partner. You did it exactly correct. I actually had this happen at a college camp last year and both clinicians said- you offer the information to your partner and let him do with it what he wants. But there should be absolutely no problem from him in that you offered the information. Sounds like an insecure official to me.

the definition of a try also tells us a try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing or tapping the ball into his basket. if the player is able to release the ball and by doing so, they throw the ball towards a teammate, ie they pass the ball, they have not, are not, were not by definition shooting the ball, thus no free throws.

exactly

First of all, I have never seen all 4 players standing on the basketball goal. Do people always have to give an extreme example to make a point that is not what we are discussing?

Yes it is possible for a player to get the ball knocked out of their hands that prevents them from actual shooting. That is not what I am saying here. But all fouls do not completely prevent a player from doing something and when they are not prevented from shooting or passing, I will assume if they passed the ball to someone that is open after I have ruled a foul took place (which does not mean I blew the whistle), I am going with what they actually do. If they are able to pass the ball, that tells me that was not their intention. If the put the ball up in a half-azz effort, then I am certainly not going to penalize them from getting FTs. This is at the end of the day where you have to put the big boy or big girl pants on and officiate. And if you feel they were shooting, be my guest and make that ruling. But where I officiate (and yes that matters) no one cares if we consider this a pass and not in the act of shooting if they pass the ball at the last minute. And the situations I am invisioning are usually rather clear. I am not imagining a sitaution where contact was so severe that they pass the ball and are unable to shoot. Then again I have not seen every single game and only can speak from my experience and background. Maybe you have seen something I have not and I certainly support your position to call it the way you see it.

Peace

The guy who fouled him was defending the shot, not the pass.