Communication with partner

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is very wrong.

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

[APG]

I've always been taught, and judged these plays similar to how JRut has spelled it out. The only exception is if a player puts up a shot as a clear afterthought.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by APG

I've always been taught, and judged these plays similar to how JRut has spelled it out. The only exception is if a player puts up a shot as a clear afterthought.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is it very wrong because you disagree with it?

The definition of a try tells us it is still a try even if a foul prevents the release of the ball. The fact that the player releases the ball on a pass after all this doesn't change that. In my example, I took judgment out of the equation.

"If a player is shooting a layup......."

He gets clobbered and is unable to complete the layup, so he does what he can, just in case he doesn't get the foul call. You and johnny d say, because of this late pass, which in fact occurs after the ball is dead, he shouldn't get free throws.

This is very wrong.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The definition of a try tells us it is still a try even if a foul prevents the release of the ball. The fact that the player releases the ball on a pass after all this doesn't change that. In my example, I took judgment out of the equation.

"If a player is shooting a layup......."

He gets clobbered and is unable to complete the layup, so he does what he can, just in case he doesn't get the foul call. You and johnny d say, because of this late pass, which in fact occurs after the ball is dead, he shouldn't get free throws.

This is very wrong.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Because part of this is judgment and when a player does one thing, I am not going to assume he wanted to do something totally different. He better continue as if he was shooting if he wants a shooting foul opportunity. If he passes because he thinks that is the better play, then he told me what he wanted to do. Again, this is not a reading minds situation where I know for sure. Again, I give the benefit of the doubt to shooting anytime a player gathers the ball. But when they could hear the whistle and do something else, that tells me they were not shooting. That is the way I have done it for years and that is the way I will continue forward. You can say I am wrong, but no one but you in my career has ever argued the point you are in this discussion.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, I give the benefit of the doubt to shooting anytime a player gathers the ball.

Apparently you don't sometimes. The guy in my play had gathered the ball. What he does after contact doesn't change that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Apparently you don't sometimes. The guy in my play had gathered the ball. What he does after contact doesn't change that.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

So you might still give him shots if the contact caused him to fumble, but you won't give him shots if the contact stopped the shot, but he is still able to throw a pass in another direction. That is hard to understand.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So you might still give him shots if the contact caused him to fumble, but you won't give him shots if the contact stopped the shot, but he is still able to throw a pass in another direction. That is hard to understand.

Not hard for me to understand, but you already disagree with the philosophy...you're not going to be won over by anything in this discussion so the rest of this is discussion is moot.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Apparently you don't sometimes. The guy in my play had gathered the ball. What he does after contact doesn't change that.

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