"Continuous" issues...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by kk13

Some people are questioning #3. It looks to me like she had "collected" was fouled and then completed the try. AND ONE in my book!

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

The gather was well before the foul on #3. Not even a question in my mind! Send her to the line. The shooting motion starts when the ball is gathered and the dribble has ended.

First, "gather"/"collect", while we often use it as an indicator could just as well precede a pass. In #3, it wasn't clear to me that she had yet made up her mind on what she was going to do with the ball. She was going in a direction not exactly to the hoop, got fouled, then turned to the basket....almost as if I was an afterthought. I can't say she wasn't shooting and wouldn't criticize anyone who puts her on the line, but it is also not unreasonable to say she wasn't shooting on that one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

First, "gather"/"collect", while we often use it as an indicator could just as well precede a pass. In #3, it wasn't clear to me that she had yet made up her mind on what she was going to do with the ball. She was going in a direction not exactly to the hoop, got fouled, then turned to the basket....almost as if I was an afterthought. I can't say she wasn't shooting and wouldn't criticize anyone who puts her on the line, but it is also not unreasonable to say she wasn't shooting on that one.

I agree with this. While I would have probably put her on the line, if she had consistently made this move prior to passing before this play, it's possible I could have considered this a common foul.

I tend to err on the side of free throws, though (except in the occasional little kids' games where free throws are not advantageous), so putting her on the line here would have been my call 99% of the time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

First, "gather"/"collect", while we often use it as an indicator could just as well precede a pass. In #3, it wasn't clear to me that she had yet made up her mind on what she was going to do with the ball. She was going in a direction not exactly to the hoop, got fouled, then turned to the basket....almost as if I was an afterthought. I can't say she wasn't shooting and wouldn't criticize anyone who puts her on the line, but it is also not unreasonable to say she wasn't shooting on that one.

Well you focus so much on rules, but the rules do not say that we are to mind read. If the player did everything that looks like a shot, they are shooting. We have had this discussion before, but not sure how she does not look like she is shooting when she is taking on two defenders. It might be a bad shot, but it is still a shot. IMO that was the worst one not to call shooting.

Peace

[APG]

I'll just say this...play 3 is a shooting foul EVERY single time in my game if I'm the calling official and honestly, it's not even close to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

I'll just say this...play 3 is a shooting foul EVERY single time in my game if I'm the calling official and honestly, it's not even close to me.

+1000

Peace

[JetMetFan]

One of the problematic things to me on #3 is the L waved it off so quickly. There was contact and then the "no goal" signal came out immediately. He didn't give a chance for the play to finish.

Camron, I can see your point that she may not have made up her mind when the contact took place but if the L lets it finsh then takes in what happened he might end up with a different ruling. If she gets bumped then dumps it off to the trailer then, no, she's not going to the line. But in this case I don't think we should make a value judgment on the type or degree of difficulty of shot she was attempting to take. She didn't end her dribble, get bumped, hesitate then throw up a shot. She ended her dribble, got bumped and in one smooth motion went up with the ball.

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

All but 4 look like shooting fouls to me. I think in #4 you might have a patient whistle there and the foul actually occurring on the feed pass.

Originally Posted by Adam

If he's calling that "bump", he needs to be slightly more patient and let it go (IMO). Calling it after your inside beast has the ball and a 4-foot jumper just looks horrible. And you've rewarded the defense for poor defense. It's like calling the hack on the wrist in transition as the pass is landing in the hands of a wide open teammate, in stride, for a layup.

Ditto what Adam said on #4. When I first saw the play I was shocked there was a whistle to begin with (there were a couple of plays like that involving the big kid). Black #14 would've needed help from his family to displace White #34 on a good day. Don't compund the problem by taking away a point-blank try at the basket from the tallest kid within a five-mile radius. If he misses the layup, that's on him.

[ballgame99]

1, 2, 3 and 5 are clearly shooting fouls IMO. #4 was the only debatable one for me. Based on the signal he's calling the pre-shot push on the entry pass, which IMO is not a good call. Was the big man really disadvantaged significantly by the defender's action? It sure doesn't look like it.

And I count #3 all day, with gusto.

I had a play like this a couple weeks ago. I counted it and the opposing coach couldn't believe it. I just said "she was in her shooting motion coach", He actually said, "but if you're calling the block it HAS to be on the floor" I don't think my snicker was audible.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

1, 2, 3 and 5 are clearly shooting fouls IMO. #4 was the only debatable one for me. Based on the signal he's calling the pre-shot push on the entry pass, which IMO is not a good call. Was the big man really disadvantaged significantly by the defender's action? It sure doesn't look like it.

And I count #3 all day, with gusto.

I had a play like this a couple weeks ago. I counted it and the opposing coach couldn't believe it. I just said "she was in her shooting motion coach", He actually said, "but if you're calling the block it HAS to be on the floor" I don't think my snicker was audible.

Mine would have been.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Adam

Mine would have been.

I'm seeing a trend in these plays, as well as others while I OD on H.S. playoff ball on the web.

*A1 gathers
*A1 has ball at his/her hips or below
*B1 commits a foul
*A1 doesn't get credit for continuous motion

It's as though the play stops for the calling officials if A1 doesn't have the ball in a "shooting" position when the whistle blows.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by APG

I'll just say this...play 3 is a shooting foul EVERY single time in my game if I'm the calling official and honestly, it's not even close to me.

Me too.

The only comment I have is on 4. If the official inside is calling that weak little push as a foul against the big, then it's gotta come a bit quicker. If my whistle is that late, it's on the shot.

I take great pride in putting the shooter on the line every time I'm supposed to by rule. It's one of my pet peeves watching officials who don't.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well you focus so much on rules, but the rules do not say that we are to mind read. If the player did everything that looks like a shot, they are shooting.

Quite the contrary..that is exactly what we have to do many times. This whole no mind-reading mantra has gotten so twisted out of context. The only place it has ever been referenced is in the context of a ball thrown from behind the 3-point line that goes in.

When fouled, we have to decide what they were attempting to do at the time of the foul..not observe what they do after. They may not even get the ball to a point where it is certain, yet we must still judge what they were trying to do. How many times have you seen a player no where near shooting who turns and throws the ball at the basket after they realize they were fouled??

If they do what looks like a shot up to the time of a foul, they're shooting, even if they subsequently pass. If the only thing that looks like a shot is after the contact, they were not shooting.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If they do what looks like a shot up to the time of a foul, they're shooting, even if they subsequently pass. If the only thing that looks like a shot is after the contact, they were not shooting.

We had this discussion before...some officiate it as you describe above. Some don't.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

We had this discussion before...some officiate it as you describe above. Some don't.

Some don't. Some do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Quite the contrary..that is exactly what we have to do many times. This whole mind-reading mantra has gotten so twisted out of context. The only place it has ever been referenced is in the context of a ball thrown from behind the 3-point line that goes in.

We penalize or reward actions that we witness. A player might be thinking that I am going to get into a fight, we do not penalize those thoughts. We penalize when they get in someone's face or hit someone. And when a player does everything that looks like a shot, even if it is a bad one, it is a shot. I do not think we are hear to say, "Well it was not a good shot, so we will award them something else even when they actually shoot." Sorry, but we do not do that and that is not how the rule is written.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

When fouled, we have to decide what they were attempting to do at the time of the foul..not observe what they do after. They may not even get the ball to a point where it is certain, yet we must still judge what they were trying to do. How many times have you seen a player no where near shooting who turns and throws the ball at the basket after they realize they were fouled??

Like I have said recently these are judgments. And if in your judgment is that this is not a shot because you feel you can "tell" they were not going to shoot until they did, go right ahead. But understand that is not the actual rule and not what the player actually did on this play. The ball handler did shoot and unless there was some contact before the ball was picked up, that is fine, but not what the official did on the play. The official waited for the ball to go in and then waved off the shot. Well if you clearly do not have a shot or shooting, then wave it off immediately to tell everyone you do not have a shooting foul. At least that would add credibility to what they saw.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If they did what looked like a shot up to the time of a foul, they're shooting, even if they subsequently pass. If the only thing that looked like a shot was after the contact, they were not shooting.

You just want to push that same agenda you had before. That is fine, but these are two different issues on many levels. This player shot the ball and did nothing else. And if a player passes the ball because they see an open teammate I am not going to go on thinking, "You know, he might have been shooting." Not going to happen from me. If you want to do that in your game, go right ahead. But I have never heard an single evaluation that said not to do it that way.

Peace

[Kelvin green]

My thoughts, ball had been gathered on all 5 plays. They either were shooting or passing...

I nver saw a pass so they had to be shooting. We should stop making it so difficult.