Communication with partner

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An interpretation is only "old" if it's been superceded, which this one has not.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An interpretation is only "old" if it's been superceded, which this one has not.

True, and it is unlikely to be superceded when it states what is obvious.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True, and it is unlikely to be superceded when it states what is obvious.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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

I do not make quick determinations when I call fouls. If that was the case then I would only call intentional and flagrant fouls the second I blow the whistle. Sometimes those take time to process what just took place. So just because I blow the whistle does not mean everything I am going to do next is not still being processed. I also did not say it was the main factor, you have. I said that if a player is able to pass the ball, they are clearly not unable to shoot as you seem to want to claim. And the times when a player does this in my experience they are in a lot of control. Fouls do not completely take away a players ability to be under control all the time. Actually most of the time a player is fouled they still could continue unless they are knocked to the floor.

Peace

[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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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?

I just explained why in the post you quoted.

And we are judging what the player intending to do. We don't "know" what he intended to do.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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?

Because it clearly wasn't a shot, was it?

[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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is no basis for this.

Have you never seen a player drive to the basket and go through a normal shooting motion only to dish it off at the last second? You thought he would shoot, didn't you? But he didn't. So how can you say there is no basis for it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

This example from the first page of the thread:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If he passed instead the then I have it as a non-shooting foul. I've seen plenty of players go up for a shot and then decide to pass it instead.

Had this exact play with a long-time veteran in the new association I just joined and I walked past him and said "he passed the ball" and my partner changed it to a non-shooting foul and we had a throw-in on the endline.