Communication with partner

[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 Smitty

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?

Exactly what I'm saying.

It's really never been much of a debate where I've worked or for the different supervisors for whom I've worked.

I've actually been complimented a couple times by observers for bringing my partners this information. And I've seen officials get criticized for not knowing that the player passed the balled off when they were awarded 2 shots.

And back to what started the thread, it was about a partner bringing information. I'm going to continue to bring that information. If my partner decides to stay with a shooting foul that's his perogative. It will not be something I bring up in the locker room afterward b/c it will be obvious by his decsion what his judgment is.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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?

I'm saying there is no basis for not giving a player two shots solely because he passed the ball rather than continue with his original motion which may now be impossible because of contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm saying there is no basis for not giving a player two shots solely because he passed the ball rather than continue with his original motion which may now be impossible because of contact.

Who said it was impossible? What example was given where it was impossible to get the shot off?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Who said it was impossible? What example was given where it was impossible to get the shot off?

There are a million examples. The reason may not even have to do with the defender who committed the foul.

A1 goes up to shoot and is grabbed by B1. < Whistle> Just prior to the release, B2 steps out to contest the shot. Because of the contact, A1 realizes he will not get the shot over B2, so he dishes off instead.

Ruling: 2 shots

[OKREF]

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?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Who said it was impossible? What example was given where it was impossible to get the shot off?

I did.

What about this. Last second shot, player rises to shoot, fouled hard enough to not be able to shoot. Whistle. Ball never leaves his hand. Someone said earlier that to get two shots the ball needs to leave the hands.

[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.

[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.