Communication with partner

[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

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.