Agreed. I've been on both ends of this where I have brought the information and where information was brought to me. "Did you see that he passed the ball?" "No, I didn't. Spot foul."

If the calling official decides to stay with 2 shots for whatever reason then fine but nothing wrong with bringing info.

And I have always been taught that it can't be a shooting foul if the player passes the ball. I can understand the other side but don't agree with it, even with a 12 year old case play.

The people I work for insist that if a player passes the ball, it can't be a shooting foul. So that's what I go with it.

Exactly my position.

Peace

That pretty must settles it. This interp lays it out in black and white with no ambiguity. Anyone that thinks "shot" when the player goes up but calls no-shot after they change to a pass after the foul is just being a wuss and not wanting to make the right call.

I do not know anyone that makes a call other than a rookie or someone without much experience that makes a determination based the minute or second a foul is called? And the interpretation (old) also said if the official determines the player was shooting. Well I do not think they are shooting when they pass the ball. I have yet to see that play would even make me rethink that position on a play.

And save the "being a wuss" comments. I can tell you I award a lot of shots and get crap for them because people do not realize that the NBA rule and NCAA and NF rule on continuous motion are exactly the same. It is not about getting crap on one call when this issue usually brings a lot more crap when you award a shot or count the basket on a clearly continuous motion issue.

Peace

An interpretation is only "old" if it's been superceded, which this one has not.

Regarding only rookies making this call, I saw this called a shooting foul in the Univ of Texas game just last week. Coach complained a little, but it appeared to me to be easily the right call. Guy was going up for a shot, was fouled pretty hard from about a 135 degree angle, and as he was falling saw a teammate at the 3 pt arc, and sort of shoved it over there.

And this is certainly not the ONLY time I'd seen a shooting foul called when no shot managed to get out of the shooter's hands.

True, and it is unlikely to be superceded when it states what is obvious.

NCAA and NBA...you're going to see that, more often then not, called a foul and judged to be no shot and on the pass off. Heck, NCAA even added a signal to indicate no shot due to a pass off.

Well I hope he enjoys his GV schedule.

If it is so obvious then why is not done universally your way?

It's not about being a "wuss." We've all been out there and made the decision on the fly. The case reference you cite says "...provided the official deems that A1 was in the act of shooting." I may think A1 is going to shoot when he/she goes into the habitual motion but if A1 passes the ball can't that create doubt in my mind as to what they planned to do? If the kid creates doubt, then they're not getting the FTs.

As JRut said earlier, if they want the FTs, shoot the darn ball. If they're able to release the ball, it's hard to give them the FTs if they purposely pass it to a teammate.

So when a player gets fouled, and we hold our whistle for a moment as we judge the play, you expect the player to throw up a circus shot just in case we call the foul?

So, a player starts their normal shooting motion, gets hammered, official has a whistle. The offensive player isn't able to release the ball. Are you saying they aren't in the act of shooting? IMO if they begin their shooting motion and get fouled, it is a shooting foul. .

Because, in this case, what some people do is contrary to the written rule.

I guess we need an "inside joke" smilie. :)

You beat me to that statement. ;)

Peace