Communication with partner
 

I was working a 3-person game this afternoon. I was the trail, tableside. Player A1 drives from the my area into the lead's area. A1 gets underneath the basket, and begins to pass the ball to A2, who is in the center's area. A1 gets hacked on the arm during the pass. Lead correctly calls the foul, but signals two shots. I walk past him before he reports and ask "hey did you know he was passing"? My partner ignores me and confronts me after the game about it. He says that I should not "question" his foul call, and says that even though I was trying to give him information that would have made the foul non-shooting, I should have kept that information to myself. Thoughts?

In my book, you were absolutely right. No such thing as too much information there, as long as it was approached as only being information and not trying to show your partner up or anything else of the sort.

Hard to say without seeing the play. You gave him your opinion, with which he obviously did not agree. Is it possible that the player went up to shoot, then after contact, passed instead? You say it was in your partner's area, but you are sure you saw the play better than he did?

It would have to be a really big and obvious screwup before I would inject myself here without being asked.

Your partner sounds like the type of guy I hate working with. If sharing relevant info with him on a call is considered "questioning" a call, he is way too sensitive. I'll bet he loses it when someone grabs one in his primary.

Every association seems to have a few of these guys. My suggestion is to group them together and let them work together...they'd miss a lot of stuff but be happy about it because nobody called "in their" primary.

I think insecurity is the root of that attitude.

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.

It is a judgment call, of course. But if, in my judgment, the player is attempting a try, but contact causes him to instead pass the ball, he gets two shots.

It is completely possible that the player went up to shoot but passed after contact. I saw the pass better than the lead, but it is his final decision. It is not as though I am overruling him. I was simply providing him information, but he got pissed anyway and told me not to do that in the future.

If the player was fouled on the pass, there would have been no shots. Instead we were shooting two. That seems like an important enough situation to warrant my approaching him unasked. I guess I am more asking when I should give a partner unasked advice? I guess it depends a lot on the person, because some are sensitive as mentioned above.

Not here, if you ask me.

Again this game is about angles. If someone comes to me and clearly sees a pass, then they are not going to get a shooting foul.

Then if a player clearly passes despite what his intentions were at the time of the foul call, it is not my mind to read his mind, I am going to give him the benefit of the last thing he did. Had a coach this past week make that point but the his player clearly passed the ball. Otherwise if you cannot tell what they were doing as they were going to the basket or in a shooting motion, then I am always going to think they are shooting.

Peace

not a chance a person who passes the ball is getting two free throws from me. doesnt matter what his intentions were before contact if he throws a pass instead of shooting the ball he has not attempted to score a goal and should not be awarded free throws.

as for the op, i have no problem letting a partner know that the play resulted in a pass rather than a shot and i dont know why any official would be offended when a partner offers information.

So you're saying if a player is shooting a layup and is knocked to the floor before the release, but instinctively shoves the ball toward a teammate at the last instant, he doesn't get free throws?

I'm saying that if he isn't. ;)

Peace

This is very wrong.

We can always wait a beat and see what the player does after contact. If A1 is going up for a layup, gets hit and then passes the ball...from what I was taught, he just cost himself FTs. If the contact makes it so he can't release the ball on a shot, that's another story. Sure there's judgment involved but the player will solve the issue for us if we wait a second.

As for providing information, that's a tough one. It wasn't in your area but you followed the play, which isn't wrong since it started in your area. The other way to at least put it in your partner's mind would've been to ask him as he goes by "Possession or shots?" Once he gives his answer, move on.

By rule, if the player was shooting when they were fouled, they're going to the line. It doesn't matter what they do next. Nothing says they have to finish the shot to be in the act of shooting. Their shot was stopped by the foul and I'm not going to reward a defender who fouls such that the shot becomes impossible and the shooter, not knowing for sure if a foul will even be called, instead tries to salvage the play. Anything else is shortchanging the shooter.

I confess I'm not at all likely to approach a partner and suggest we not shoot free throws. In fact, I don't recall ever doing it. For me, the slower my whistle, the more likely I am to grant free throws to a player whom I deemed to be shooting before getting fouled. A slower whistle means the player may have thought he wasn't getting the call so he needed to adjust, imo.

My question to the OP, how loudly did you offer this extra information?

Funny that you should ask. Being tableside, we met just off the baseline outside the lane. I went to his side and asked in a low voice if he knew the player was passing. He ignored me, and continued walking to report. When he confronted me after the game he also mentioned that "the coach heard that!" which makes both of us look bad. I said that I knew the coach did not hear me (the coach was at least 15 feet away and I was speaking so no one else could hear me), but he said "you can't know that!" Simply put, I spoke in a fashion (low voice and unobtrusive) so spectators would not think I was showing him up. He took offense anyway.

you might think he is in the act of shooting right up to the point he decides to pass the ball and when he does, he isnt getting free throws. the contact didnt prevent him from releasing the ball, in which case i will make a judgement as to whether or not he was attempting to shoot, so he chose to pass the ball, which means he isnt shooting!

I was taught the same way. Then, I read some interp from the NFHS (might be in the "annual interps thread"; I don't think it's in the case book) and changed how I called the plays to follow the interp.

Is it very wrong because you disagree with it?

Look, if a player wants me to think they are shooting, then shoot the ball. If a player wants me to think they are passing, then pass the ball. Not all players that gather and jump in the air are shooting. Otherwise if a player gathers and gets the ball knocked out his hands or knocked the the floor whether they release the ball to shoot or pass, they are getting shots from me. After all this is all about judgment anyway. There is ultimately nothing right or wrong either way. I am just not rewarding a player that is not smart enough to know to not pass the ball if you want the total benefit of the foul.

Peace

I've always been taught, and judged these plays similar to how JRut has spelled it out. The only exception is if a player puts up a shot as a clear afterthought.

The definition of a try tells us it is still a try even if a foul prevents the release of the ball. The fact that the player releases the ball on a pass after all this doesn't change that. In my example, I took judgment out of the equation.

"If a player is shooting a layup......."

He gets clobbered and is unable to complete the layup, so he does what he can, just in case he doesn't get the foul call. You and johnny d say, because of this late pass, which in fact occurs after the ball is dead, he shouldn't get free throws.

This is very wrong.

And that is exactly what I get paid to do and that is what matters at the time of the foul. Defaulting to a pass if they don't actually finish the shot is, IMO, the lazy way out.

If you're going to follow the philosophy you've laid out, you must also award shots when a player who had no intention of shooting gets fouled and then flings the ball towards the basket after realizing they were fouled.

problem is you dont really know he is shooting the ball, even on a layup, until he acutally releases the ball on a shot. he could very well be in a motion we all assume and associate with shooting a layup but that doesnt mean he is going to shoot the layup, foul or not. and none of us have ever seen a player go up for an apparent easy shot/layup and decide while airborne that their teammate has a better shot and try to pass it off to them only to have the ball go out of bounds because everybody assumed he was shooting the ball when he really wasnt. so if the play looks like a shot, acts like a shot it can be considered a shot right up the the moment it becomes a pass.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Because part of this is judgment and when a player does one thing, I am not going to assume he wanted to do something totally different. He better continue as if he was shooting if he wants a shooting foul opportunity. If he passes because he thinks that is the better play, then he told me what he wanted to do. Again, this is not a reading minds situation where I know for sure. Again, I give the benefit of the doubt to shooting anytime a player gathers the ball. But when they could hear the whistle and do something else, that tells me they were not shooting. That is the way I have done it for years and that is the way I will continue forward. You can say I am wrong, but no one but you in my career has ever argued the point you are in this discussion.

Peace

We've all seen enough basketball to make this call. And I'd rather err on the side of giving a set * of free throws that maybe weren't deserved than taking away three or four sets * of shots because a player adjusted after he was fouled because he didn't know if he'd get the call. We tell them to keep playing to the whistle.

* per season

The definition of a try tells us it is still a try even if a foul prevents the release of the ball.

Apparently you don't sometimes. The guy in my play had gathered the ball. What he does after contact doesn't change that.

The ball was released. It was passed to a teammate.

After the try ended, so the ball was dead.

It was dead? When did the ball become dead?

I was not aware that we were supposed to take into account action that occurs after the ball is dead in determining what we should have called when it was live. Seems rather arse-backward to me.

So if he puts up a shot as a clear afterthought, it's not a shot. OK, I get that. But if he changes his shot to a pass as a clear afterthought, it's also not a shot? It's THAT that I don't get.

Yes, no cheap trips to the line...still though, it would have to be CLEAR...as in the benefit of the doubt would go to the fouled player that he didn't put up the shot as an afterthought.

He was unable to release on the try, so the try ended. Now, because of the foul, the ball is dead.

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

If you are unable to release the try, how are you able to pass the ball?

Peace

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.

because one never has to gather the ball to make a pass?

That is a crappy partner. You did it exactly correct. I actually had this happen at a college camp last year and both clinicians said- you offer the information to your partner and let him do with it what he wants. But there should be absolutely no problem from him in that you offered the information. Sounds like an insecure official to me.

the definition of a try also tells us a try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing or tapping the ball into his basket. if the player is able to release the ball and by doing so, they throw the ball towards a teammate, ie they pass the ball, they have not, are not, were not by definition shooting the ball, thus no free throws.

exactly

First of all, I have never seen all 4 players standing on the basketball goal. Do people always have to give an extreme example to make a point that is not what we are discussing?

Yes it is possible for a player to get the ball knocked out of their hands that prevents them from actual shooting. That is not what I am saying here. But all fouls do not completely prevent a player from doing something and when they are not prevented from shooting or passing, I will assume if they passed the ball to someone that is open after I have ruled a foul took place (which does not mean I blew the whistle), I am going with what they actually do. If they are able to pass the ball, that tells me that was not their intention. If the put the ball up in a half-azz effort, then I am certainly not going to penalize them from getting FTs. This is at the end of the day where you have to put the big boy or big girl pants on and officiate. And if you feel they were shooting, be my guest and make that ruling. But where I officiate (and yes that matters) no one cares if we consider this a pass and not in the act of shooting if they pass the ball at the last minute. And the situations I am invisioning are usually rather clear. I am not imagining a sitaution where contact was so severe that they pass the ball and are unable to shoot. Then again I have not seen every single game and only can speak from my experience and background. Maybe you have seen something I have not and I certainly support your position to call it the way you see it.

Peace

The guy who fouled him was defending the shot, not the pass.

Huh?

Now where is that rules based?

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.

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.

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.

Arguing is my hobby.

Yep.

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

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

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.

Again do what works for you my man.

Peace

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

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.

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.

Agreed. I've been on both ends of this where I have brought the information and where information was brought to me. "Did you see that he passed the ball?" "No, I didn't. Spot foul."

If the calling official decides to stay with 2 shots for whatever reason then fine but nothing wrong with bringing info.

And I have always been taught that it can't be a shooting foul if the player passes the ball. I can understand the other side but don't agree with it, even with a 12 year old case play.

The people I work for insist that if a player passes the ball, it can't be a shooting foul. So that's what I go with it.

Exactly my position.

Peace

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

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.

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

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.

Well I hope he enjoys his GV schedule.

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

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.

So when a player gets fouled, and we hold our whistle for a moment as we judge the play, you expect the player to throw up a circus shot just in case we call the foul?

So, a player starts their normal shooting motion, gets hammered, official has a whistle. The offensive player isn't able to release the ball. Are you saying they aren't in the act of shooting? IMO if they begin their shooting motion and get fouled, it is a shooting foul. .

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

I guess we need an "inside joke" smilie. :)

You beat me to that statement. ;)

Peace

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. :D

Peace

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

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.

:confused:

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.

Well the RA is not a factor in this play and would not change what happens if a player is fouled and passes the ball because the RA is at play. And if NCAA and NBA are not a factor, then why do we watch plays from those levels?

Peace

I work games where RA arcs are enforced and so do quite a few of our posters. Why is what the NCAA does not applicable to this thread?

Steady guys, just making a little joke. The point was, the OP was clearly made with NFHS rules in mind. Not sure what the differences might be with regard to the actual rule about this, but whether they're different or not,
"Because the NCAA does is this way" is clearly not significant in this discussion.

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.

It's how it's done in my HS games as well as how it's done in my college games.

Except someone brought up an example of this situation happening in an NCAA game and brought it up as an example of someone agreeing with your POV. NCAA and the NBA handle this situation very similarly...right down to the mechanic indicated for a pass off.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Well, that's different then.:D

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?

This example from the first page of the thread:

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.

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?

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

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.

The rule itself tells us this is not the case.