Game Winner?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by ODog

Team A commits a foul in the scrum for the rebound and loses as a result of free throws that would not have been awarded if it had been a TC foul.

Granted, no one would really consider it controversial since most people would also have considered it a shot. So even that's not a horrible outcome.

My take on the video isn't so much that I would have ruled it a pass (heat of the moment, it'd be a shot in my game too, I think), but when I saw backcourt was the ruling, I thought about it and saw the official's point. And it turned out he was RIGHT (remember, the article with quotes from players and coaches says it was a pass).

So while you may not love the call and would never, under any circumstances, make it yourself, the official was right here, even if he had to go obscure/nitpick/risk public ridicule (which we do nightly anyway) to be so.

Odog,

I'm not really dissing this official - his judgement, his call. I'm not really dissing any official that is wanting to to make a judgement each time as to whether it is a pass or shot. But, I don't see any problem with any official that wants to factor in his judgement criteria that the 60' throw is above the rim and is headed for the rim/backboard and considers it a shot if it hits the rim/backboard (wow, why would he be throwing that ball towards the rim/backboard with 5 seconds left kind of thing). You use your pass judgement on teammates location, eyes looking toward streaking teammate or eyes looking toward rim/backboard, shooting form, etc. while I am trying to make certain that he does not get fouled, that he gets it off before the horn, that he doesn't land on an opponent who has established LGP, that an opponent doesn't leap up there and swat it away on it's downward flight, and after all that, will consider it a shot if it hits the backboard.

All I'm asking is why can't I deem it a shot (in my judgement) if it hits the backboard without demanding that you do as well? In short, err on the side of a shot?

[SAJ]

Originally Posted by ODog

My take on the video isn't so much that I would have ruled it a pass (heat of the moment, it'd be a shot in my game too, I think), but when I saw backcourt was the ruling, I thought about it and saw the official's point. And it turned out he was RIGHT (remember, the article with quotes from players and coaches says it was a pass).

So while you may not love the call and would never, under any circumstances, make it yourself, the official was right here, even if he had to go obscure/nitpick/risk public ridicule (which we do nightly anyway) to be so.

So now you're believing what a sports reporter says? There were no players or coaches saying it was a pass in that article.

[BktBallRef]

Is the "pass" deflected by the defender?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by refiator

Kaelen Riley CHS vs Coosa - YouTube

My understanding is that the officials disallowed the basket. They ruled the first shot a pass, and a backcourt violation killed the shot. Thoughts?

My thought is this:

Sometimes you can think too much.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sometimes you can think too much.

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Brad

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

So if I understand you, this should be a shot based on the fact that it hit the backboard? Do you have a rule or case play that backs your intrp here? Or are you simply saying that your judgement of intent here is more valid than others who say they would judge it a pass?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So if I understand you, this should be a shot based on the fact that it hit the backboard? Do you have a rule or case play that backs your intrp here? Or are you simply saying that your judgement of intent here is more valid than others who say they would judge it a pass?

No, I'm saying that it is a shot unless you are CERTAIN that it isn't because that is what common-sense dictates is the obvious call.

How can it be a pass? Do most passes from the backcourt hit the backboard in your games?

I'm saying that you CANNOT judge intent and because you cannot judge intent, you must determine that this is a shot. You can't say, "Well, I think it was more of a crappy pass than a crappy shot."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Brad

How can it be a pass? Do most passes from the backcourt hit the backboard in your games?

How can it be a shot? Do most varsity players take this kind of heave with 4 seconds still on the clock in your games?

One question is about as useful here as the other.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Brad

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

What he said. Can't believe this made 3 pages.

[Adam]

Finally watched the video. Frankly, I don't think I could tell just by watching it what he was doing, so I'd rule it a shot.

I don't, however, agree that it's a shot simply because it hit the backboard.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Brad

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

Contrived ruling? To say he was shooting is what is contrived. That ball left his hands as a pass. He was trying to hit his player cutting in from the left side. He may have failed at it but that is what he was doing. It just wouldn't make any sense for him to shoot like that at that time. To say he was shooting just because the bad pass just happened to hit the backboard is nothing more than avoiding having to make a decision.

Stop judging intent? We have to do that all the time so why should this be any different? A player puts up an air ball and then catches it. You have to decide if it was a try or not...what was the player's intent. A player is fouled. You must decide shooting or not...what were they intending to do.

If you saw that same play but the thrower was fouled and the ball was knocked away as it was released, would you have put the player on the line for 3 shots? You must decide what he was trying to do...what did he intend to do??? Even if the ball wasn't knocked away, would you award 3 shots? What if it fell 6 inches short and missed the board, does that make it not a shot? If so, does that mean a try has to hit something to be a try?

If somone jumped up and caught that ball before it hit the backboard, would you have called offensive goaltending?

[#olderthanilook]

Teen Wolf sighting!

[APG]

If I had to venture a guess, the overwhelming majority of officials would rule that a try.

Just my simple opinion, but if you rule that to be a pass, you'd just be adding s*** into your game.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by APG

If I had to venture a guess, the overwhelming majority of officials would rule that a try.

Just my simple opinion, but if you rule that to be a pass, you'd just be adding s*** into your game.

Ok, why?

Why are we all ruling it a try?

And if your answer is because it hit the rim, then what rule are you using to back that up?

[Judtech]

It would be interesting to see if the C was signaling a 3 point shot. You can't really tell from the video. If he was signaling a 3 attempt that sort of answers the question.
As officials, is it a duty to know what the play is going to be? Do we know for certain, as someone mentioned, that he was supposed to pass to the player cutting down the left side? Or pass it up the line to the player who ended up covered?
I see a player leave his feet and launch the ball towards the ball from half court are towards the goal. We have already determined there is no rule we can cite to say this is a shot attempt or this is a pass attempt. Since we are dealing with judgement, go with the easiest option. Is it easier to believe this was a shot attempt or some botched play with an errant pass?

And whoever asked why a kid would shoot a ball from mid court with that much time left made me laugh. Much like women, I have given up trying to figure out why teenagers do what they do and just go with it!