Richmond vs. Charlotte End of Game

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Then, what criteria would make it sufficient? Is it as simple as "in my judgement, he/she was shooting?

I think the FED statement is something like "begins the habitual motion" so yes, a lot of that is judgment.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think the FED statement is something like "begins the habitual motion" so yes, a lot of that is judgment.

Correct. I don't even think the word gathering is in the NFHS book regarding a shooter.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think the FED statement is something like "begins the habitual motion" so yes, a lot of that is judgment.

And common sense.

[26 Year Gap]

Anyone else notice green 15 coming off the FT line toward the official to signal "T" multiple times?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think the FED statement is something like "begins the habitual motion" so yes, a lot of that is judgment.

There's a sage official around here somewhere who likes to say, "Sometimes you just have to referee."

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

I'm not too familiar with NCAA protocol, but aren't you supposed to give him the 2nd shot on the 1 and 1 first and then shoot the technicals?

That's what happened - #15 shot his 2nd then #21 shot two - and in this instance that's what's supposed to happen because this was a false multiple foul with the last foul being a dead ball contact T. The ball goes back into play as though the last foul was the only one that took place.

In most cases in the NCAA you shoot the T then go to the POI.

[Adam]

Credit to espin, they just aired a phone interview with Steve Javie who essentially said what we've been saying.

1. They had no choice on that first technical foul.
2. He'd let the coach vent a little, but when he comes out on the court like that completely out of control after tossing his jacket, he's no longer "venting a little."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Camron,

I'd like to know what your criteria is for a shooting foul. Is gather not part of that equation? Or, what has to happen for you to call "and one".

I don't use the term "gather". It is an unnecessary term and it is entirely too vague. It is not defined and is used with great inconsistency with respect to when the shot begins and when the same player is liable for a travel. Some argue that "gather" is early when in the context of a shot but will swear up and down they've not gathered it when the discussion is a travel.

If they are holding the ball and are bringing it up or trying to bring it up at the time of contact, they're going to the line. They have to have started the upward movement with the ball (or be attempting to do so) or be attempting to turn to the basket (as in a typical post move) to be shooting. On a fast break/layup, that usually starts about the same time they catch the ball but not necessarily. Farther from the basket, it is usually later.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Adam

Credit to espin, they just aired a phone interview with Steve Javie who essentially said what we've been saying.

1. They had no choice on that first technical foul.
2. He'd let the coach vent a little, but when he comes out on the court like that completely out of control after tossing his jacket, he's no longer "venting a little."

What did he say about the 1/2 court 'shot' call?

I still don't see it as a shot attempt. Fortunately for me, neither does one of my supervisors. And at the end of the day that's the only person whose opinion on the situation matters

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

What did he say about the 1/2 court 'shot' call?

I still don't see it as a shot attempt. Fortunately for me, neither does one of my supervisors. And at the end of the day that's the only person whose opinion on the situation matters

He didn't address it that I heard. I had a 7 year old running around, so I may have missed something. Honestly, I can see both sides of that, and I don't know how I would have ruled on the court. Hopefully, we'll get to see it on video in an association meeting.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't use the term "gather". It is an unnecessary term and it is entirely too vague. It is not defined and is used with great inconsistency with respect to when the shot begins and when the same player is liable for a travel. Some argue that "gather" is early when in the context of a shot but will swear up and down they've not gathered it when the discussion is a travel.

If they are holding the ball and are bringing it up or trying to bring it up at the time of contact, they're going to the line. They have to have started the upward movement with the ball (or be attempting to do so) or be attempting to turn to the basket (as in a typical post move) to be shooting. On a fast break/layup, that usually starts about the same time they catch the ball but not necessarily. Farther from the basket, it is usually later.

So you say they "are holding the ball and trying to bring it up". Another official says they have "gathered the ball". There is no difference.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Adam

He didn't address it that I heard. I had a 7 year old running around, so I may have missed something. Honestly, I can see both sides of that, and I don't know how I would have ruled on the court. Hopefully, we'll get to see it on video in an association meeting.

Not much of a multi-tasked are you?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So you say they "are holding the ball and trying to bring it up". Another official says they have "gathered the ball". There is no difference.

A1 dribbles the ball. A1 intends to (a)while in the air, grab the ball with both hands, then (b) land in a jump stop, and then (c) jump to try for goal. (a reasonably standard play we see several times a game.)

During this move, however, A1 is fouled between steps (a) and (b).

If you use the "gathered" criterion (as I understand it to mean), you'd award two shots. If you use the "begins the habitual motion" you wouldn't -- the landing is one "move" and the "try for goal" is a second.

I think that's the difference, and I think the second interp is correct.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So you say they "are holding the ball and trying to bring it up". Another official says they have "gathered the ball". There is no difference.

The point is that, in a different context, the same official will say they didn't gather it yet as a justification for not having a travel. It an undefined term that I see getting redefined on a whim to fit the desired, but sometimes unsupportable, end ruling rather than a clear definition that is used to determine the end ruling.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A1 dribbles the ball. A1 intends to (a)while in the air, grab the ball with both hands, then (b) land in a jump stop, and then (c) jump to try for goal. (a reasonably standard play we see several times a game.)

During this move, however, A1 is fouled between steps (a) and (b).

If you use the "gathered" criterion (as I understand it to mean), you'd award two shots. If you use the "begins the habitual motion" you wouldn't -- the landing is one "move" and the "try for goal" is a second.

I think that's the difference, and I think the second interp is correct.

Thank you BOB! Great example to show that "gather" does not equal "shooting". It is necessary but is not sufficient (as I think you said earlier).