Communication with partner

[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

[MD Longhorn]

An interpretation is only "old" if it's been superceded, which this one has not.

Regarding only rookies making this call, I saw this called a shooting foul in the Univ of Texas game just last week. Coach complained a little, but it appeared to me to be easily the right call. Guy was going up for a shot, was fouled pretty hard from about a 135 degree angle, and as he was falling saw a teammate at the 3 pt arc, and sort of shoved it over there.

And this is certainly not the ONLY time I'd seen a shooting foul called when no shot managed to get out of the shooter's hands.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

An interpretation is only "old" if it's been superceded, which this one has not.

True, and it is unlikely to be superceded when it states what is obvious.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True, and it is unlikely to be superceded when it states what is obvious.

If it is so obvious then why is not done universally your way?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If it is so obvious then why is not done universally your way?

Because, in this case, what some people do is contrary to the written rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Because, in this case, what some people do is contrary to the written rule.

The rule states "In the judgment of the official" basically. That still puts the onus on the official and their judgment. And rules do not change what kind of judgment we have. And why some work girls basketball and others work only boys.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule states "In the judgment of the official" basically.

This is the most important thing, I think we all agree. But it appears that you, and others, say that a pass, after the play is in fact over, is the main factor in how you judge the play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If it is so obvious then why is not done universally your way?

Until this thread, I thought it WAS universally done the right way. I don't know anyone who uses post-foul actions to determine what kind of foul it was.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Until this thread, I thought it WAS universally done the right way. I don't know anyone who uses post-foul actions to determine what kind of foul it was.

Almost everybody I work with does it the way I do it. And the example I cited earlier was me working a HS game with a very veteran official who is also a rules interpreter. He said he could have gone either way (2-shots or throw-in).

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.

It's not contrary to any rule, it's a judgment. And where I work and who I work for, it is what is expected.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Almost everybody I work with does it the way I do it. And the example I cited earlier was me worked with a very veteran official who is also a rules interpreter. He said he could have gone either way (2-shots or throw-in).

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.

It's not contrary to any rule, it's a judgment. And where and who I work for, it is what is expected.

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Almost everybody I work with does it the way I do it. And the example I cited earlier was me working a HS game with a very veteran official who is also a rules interpreter. He said he could have gone either way (2-shots or throw-in).

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.

[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.

[APG]

NCAA and NBA...you're going to see that, more often then not, called a foul and judged to be no shot and on the pass off. Heck, NCAA even added a signal to indicate no shot due to a pass off.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

NCAA and NBA...you're going to see that, more often then not, called a foul and judged to be no shot and on the pass off. Heck, NCAA even added a signal to indicate no shot due to a pass off.

You beat me to that statement.

Peace

[just another ref]

Yep, and NCAA and NBA have the little restricted area under the basket thingie, and those have nothing to do with this thread, either.