Communication with partner

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

I completely understand that there are times that someone goes up to shoot and instead decides to pass. And if they do that of their own volition... fine.

But when someone goes up with what appears to me (and/or my partners) to be a shot, and is then fouled in a way that takes that option away from him, it is completely unfair and inappropriate to penalize the fouled player for trying to salvage the play - especially considering that he doesn't know for a fact if we're going to call the foul or not. All he knows is he suddenly can't shoot and has to do something to avoid a violation - so he passes.

Wanting to hold that against the player is wrong. Insisting that the player guess whether we're going to call the foul or not is wrong. The seeming desire to punish the offended here is beyond wrong.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

Well, that's different then.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is no basis for this.

Have you never seen a player drive to the basket and go through a normal shooting motion only to dish it off at the last second? You thought he would shoot, didn't you? But he didn't. So how can you say there is no basis for it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

This example from the first page of the thread:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If he passed instead the then I have it as a non-shooting foul. I've seen plenty of players go up for a shot and then decide to pass it instead.

Had this exact play with a long-time veteran in the new association I just joined and I walked past him and said "he passed the ball" and my partner changed it to a non-shooting foul and we had a throw-in on the endline.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Have you never seen a player drive to the basket and go through a normal shooting motion only to dish it off at the last second? You thought he would shoot, didn't you? But he didn't. So how can you say there is no basis for it?

Exactly what I'm saying.

It's really never been much of a debate where I've worked or for the different supervisors for whom I've worked.

I've actually been complimented a couple times by observers for bringing my partners this information. And I've seen officials get criticized for not knowing that the player passed the balled off when they were awarded 2 shots.

And back to what started the thread, it was about a partner bringing information. I'm going to continue to bring that information. If my partner decides to stay with a shooting foul that's his perogative. It will not be something I bring up in the locker room afterward b/c it will be obvious by his decsion what his judgment is.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Have you never seen a player drive to the basket and go through a normal shooting motion only to dish it off at the last second? You thought he would shoot, didn't you? But he didn't. So how can you say there is no basis for it?

I'm saying there is no basis for not giving a player two shots solely because he passed the ball rather than continue with his original motion which may now be impossible because of contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm saying there is no basis for not giving a player two shots solely because he passed the ball rather than continue with his original motion which may now be impossible because of contact.

Who said it was impossible? What example was given where it was impossible to get the shot off?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Who said it was impossible? What example was given where it was impossible to get the shot off?

There are a million examples. The reason may not even have to do with the defender who committed the foul.

A1 goes up to shoot and is grabbed by B1. < Whistle> Just prior to the release, B2 steps out to contest the shot. Because of the contact, A1 realizes he will not get the shot over B2, so he dishes off instead.

Ruling: 2 shots

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Who said it was impossible? What example was given where it was impossible to get the shot off?

I did.

What about this. Last second shot, player rises to shoot, fouled hard enough to not be able to shoot. Whistle. Ball never leaves his hand. Someone said earlier that to get two shots the ball needs to leave the hands.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I did.

What about this. Last second shot, player rises to shoot, fouled hard enough to not be able to shoot. Whistle. Ball never leaves his hand. Someone said earlier that to get two shots the ball needs to leave the hands.

The rule itself tells us this is not the case.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I did.

What about this. Last second shot, player rises to shoot, fouled hard enough to not be able to shoot. Whistle. Ball never leaves his hand. Someone said earlier that to get two shots the ball needs to leave the hands.

Who said that? I have been following this conversation pretty closely and I have yet to remember reading someone saying what you just suggested. It should not be hard to quote if someone actually made that claim.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I did.

What about this. Last second shot, player rises to shoot, fouled hard enough to not be able to shoot. Whistle. Ball never leaves his hand. Someone said earlier that to get two shots the ball needs to leave the hands.

You would need to show me that post because that's not something I've ever heard as an official.

In fact I'm one of those officials who hates when I have partners who rule fouls "on the floor" when A1 clearly ended their dribble and started their habitual shooting motion. That failure to award 2 shots is FAR more prevalent then what is being talked about in this thread.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You would need to show me that post because that's not something I've ever heard as an official.

In fact I'm one of those officials who hates when I have partners who rule fouls "on the floor" when A1 clearly ended their dribble and started their habitual shooting motion. That failure to award 2 shots is FAR more prevalent then what is being talked about in this thread.

But this isn't the NBA...there's no continuation!

[Pantherdreams]

This whole thing is becoming much more complicated then it needs to be. I think if you judged the player to be shooting the ball when they were fouled the rule book supports you sending the player to the line. If you are not sure what they were doing in the air/ on the ground with the ball when they were fouled you make the best judgement you can based on whatever information you can before, during and even after the whistle.

Here's the hard sell for me on giving player two shots:

Player jumps up to shoot and is fouled by primary defender while shooting. Gets two shots.

Player jumps up to shoot and is not fouled by primary defender while shooting. Gets his shot off. No call.

Player jumps up to shoot and is not fouled by primary defender, see's secondary shot blocker and passes the ball. Play on no call.

Player jump up to shoot and is fouled by primary defender, see's the secondary shot blocker and passes the ball. Foul called. Two shots?!?

I don't think this can be automatic and must depend on when the foul was called and what the officials see/judge. Can't always be a shooting foul, can't always be a non-shooting foul. More information here to try to make the right call can't hurt but thats why its a judgement call.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is it very wrong because you disagree with it?

Look, if a player wants me to think they are shooting, then shoot the ball. If a player wants me to think they are passing, then pass the ball. Not all players that gather and jump in the air are shooting. Otherwise if a player gathers and gets the ball knocked out his hands or knocked the the floor whether they release the ball to shoot or pass, they are getting shots from me. After all this is all about judgment anyway. There is ultimately nothing right or wrong either way. I am just not rewarding a player that is not smart enough to know to not pass the ball if you want the total benefit of the foul.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who said that? I have been following this conversation pretty closely and I have yet to remember reading someone saying what you just suggested. It should not be hard to quote if someone actually made that claim.



Peace

You did. Shoot the ball means leaving the hands to me.