Communication with partner

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

Arguing is my hobby.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

Yep.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

That is not what I said exactly. I said that if a player was contacted and still able to pass the ball, that is what they were trying to do all along. Of course it is possible they changed their mind, but not likely. Or they were not smart enough to sell what they were trying to do.

And maybe you do not see players try this, but I see guards or ball handlers attack the basket in an effort to pass the ball for an open 3 or mid-range shot. So being around the basket means little in judging a shot.

And as APG says, you are stuck in your position anyway, so why are we really talking about this? You certainly are not changing what I have done for 17 years.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is not what I said exactly. I said that if a player was contacted and still able to pass the ball, that is what they were trying to do all along. Of course it is possible they changed their mind, but not likely. Or they were not smart enough to sell what they were trying to do.

So, by this logic, if a player is contacted and is subsequently able to heave the ball toward the goal, that should be considered what he was trying to do all along and he should be given free throws for being smart enough to try to sell that.

Whether it was a try or not must be judged before the contact. It is unusual for a player to throw a pass in this circumstance, but not extremely so. To flatly say that such a pass eliminates any chance at free throws is still very wrong.

I'm done........probably.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, by this logic, if a player is contacted and is subsequently able to heave the ball toward the goal, that should be considered what he was trying to do all along and he should be given free throws for being smart enough to try to sell that.

Whether it was a try or not must be judged before the contact. It is unusual for a player to throw a pass in this circumstance, but not extremely so. To flatly say that such a pass eliminates any chance at free throws is still very wrong.

I'm done........probably.

I'm with the others. Just another data point.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, by this logic, if a player is contacted and is subsequently able to heave the ball toward the goal, that should be considered what he was trying to do all along and he should be given free throws for being smart enough to try to sell that.

Whether it was a try or not must be judged before the contact. It is unusual for a player to throw a pass in this circumstance, but not extremely so. To flatly say that such a pass eliminates any chance at free throws is still very wrong.

I'm done........probably.

Again do what works for you my man.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

2000-2001 Interps Supplement:

SITUATION 3: A1 is in the act of shooting and is fouled by B1. The contact by B1 throws A1 off balance and in an effort to make a play A1 passes off to teammate A2 instead of proceeding through with an off-balance shot. The official rules that the pass-off by A1 is not a factor as it was not the original intent and only the result of the contact by B1. RULING: A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul committed by B1. COMMENT: Provided the official deems that A1 was in the act of shooting when fouled (the player had begun the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball for a try), the subsequent pass-off is ignored. (4-40-3; 4-40-1; Summary of Penalties #5)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2000-2001 Interps Supplement:

SITUATION 3: A1 is in the act of shooting and is fouled by B1. The contact by B1 throws A1 off balance and in an effort to make a play A1 passes off to teammate A2 instead of proceeding through with an off-balance shot. The official rules that the pass-off by A1 is not a factor as it was not the original intent and only the result of the contact by B1. RULING: A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul committed by B1. COMMENT: Provided the official deems that A1 was in the act of shooting when fouled (the player had begun the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball for a try), the subsequent pass-off is ignored. (4-40-3; 4-40-1; Summary of Penalties #5)

That is the key phrase. A player passes the ball, they are not getting shots from me. And it is great to know that over 10 years ago there was an interp, but that does not help anyone but on this site now. This better be in the current books or it is basically useless.

Peace

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A player passes the ball, they are not getting shots from me.

I'm late to the party, but this is how we do things here as well. It's consistently done among the high school and college officials in this area. There is no grey area. If the player passes the ball, no shots.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2000-2001 Interps Supplement:

SITUATION 3: A1 is in the act of shooting and is fouled by B1. The contact by B1 throws A1 off balance and in an effort to make a play A1 passes off to teammate A2 instead of proceeding through with an off-balance shot. The official rules that the pass-off by A1 is not a factor as it was not the original intent and only the result of the contact by B1. RULING: A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul committed by B1. COMMENT: Provided the official deems that A1 was in the act of shooting when fouled (the player had begun the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball for a try), the subsequent pass-off is ignored. (4-40-3; 4-40-1; Summary of Penalties #5)

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.