The rule states "In the judgment of the official" basically. That still puts the onus on the official and their judgment. And rules do not change what kind of judgment we have. And why some work girls basketball and others work only boys. :D

Peace

Yep, and NCAA and NBA have the little restricted area under the basket thingie, and those have nothing to do with this thread, either.

This is the most important thing, I think we all agree. But it appears that you, and others, say that a pass, after the play is in fact over, is the main factor in how you judge the play.

:confused:

Until this thread, I thought it WAS universally done the right way. I don't know anyone who uses post-foul actions to determine what kind of foul it was.

Well the RA is not a factor in this play and would not change what happens if a player is fouled and passes the ball because the RA is at play. And if NCAA and NBA are not a factor, then why do we watch plays from those levels?

Peace

I work games where RA arcs are enforced and so do quite a few of our posters. Why is what the NCAA does not applicable to this thread?

Steady guys, just making a little joke. The point was, the OP was clearly made with NFHS rules in mind. Not sure what the differences might be with regard to the actual rule about this, but whether they're different or not,
"Because the NCAA does is this way" is clearly not significant in this discussion.

Almost everybody I work with does it the way I do it. And the example I cited earlier was me working a HS game with a very veteran official who is also a rules interpreter. He said he could have gone either way (2-shots or throw-in).

I know when I played basketball I quite often passed the ball after jumping up intending to shoot. That decision by the player can be a split-second thing. So if have a player elevate, get fouled, then following my whistle pass the ball to a teammage under the basket I'm gonna judge that he was intending to pass the ball.

It's not contrary to any rule, it's a judgment. And where I work and who I work for, it is what is expected.

It's how it's done in my HS games as well as how it's done in my college games.

Except someone brought up an example of this situation happening in an NCAA game and brought it up as an example of someone agreeing with your POV. NCAA and the NBA handle this situation very similarly...right down to the mechanic indicated for a pass off.

So shooter intends to shoot, gets fouled and can't shoot, whistle(clearly thinking it is a shot), then a pass. Why is this not a shooting foul?

I just explained why in the post you quoted.

And we are judging what the player intending to do. We don't "know" what he intended to do.

I do not make quick determinations when I call fouls. If that was the case then I would only call intentional and flagrant fouls the second I blow the whistle. Sometimes those take time to process what just took place. So just because I blow the whistle does not mean everything I am going to do next is not still being processed. I also did not say it was the main factor, you have. I said that if a player is able to pass the ball, they are clearly not unable to shoot as you seem to want to claim. And the times when a player does this in my experience they are in a lot of control. Fouls do not completely take away a players ability to be under control all the time. Actually most of the time a player is fouled they still could continue unless they are knocked to the floor.

Peace

Because it clearly wasn't a shot, was it?

Which example are we talking about now? This is all I'm saying. It can go either way. I have understood you and Rut to say that the pass after the fact eliminates the possibility of two shots. There is no basis for this.