Communication with partner

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

After the try ended, so the ball was dead.

It was dead? When did the ball become dead?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It was dead? When did the ball become dead?

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

This discussion isn't going to change what I do. You go up for a shot, get fouled and decide to pass the ball then you aren't getting a shooting foul. If you go up, get fouled, then fling it at the basket then I'm giving you 2 shots. If you go up, get fouled, come back down with the ball then I have judge your intent and most likely I'm going to give you 2 shots.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This discussion isn't going to change what I do. You go up for a shot, get fouled and decide to pass the ball then you aren't getting a shooting foul. If you go up, get fouled, then fling it at the basket then I'm giving you 2 shots. If you go up, get fouled, come back down with the ball then I have judge your intent and most likely I'm going to give you 2 shots.

Exactly my position.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Peace

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Huh?

Now where is that rules based?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Huh?

Now where is that rules based?

Peace

We're not talking about rules here. We're talking about hypothetical situations. You asked how a player was able to release the ball on a pass who was not able to release it on a try. There was a 6' 10" 275 pound guy who stood between the shooter and the goal, and in this case committed a foul in the process. Other directions were unobstructed.

I don't see why this is hard to understand.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

That, and the foul sometimes puts a player in a position not conducive to a anything but a curcus shot, so he decides to pass because the whistle has not blown.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

That, and the foul sometimes puts a player in a position not conducive to a anything but a curcus shot, so he decides to pass because the whistle has not blown.

I see players put up ridiculous shots all the time in an effort to get FTs instead of the ball being put out of bounds.

Peace