That's two shots. Started to shoot, got hacked and the ball got deflected

You're the one claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled. It would be up to you to supply the citation that says they only get shots if they are able to continue to shoot after being fouled while trying to shoot. But that is hard to do when the ball is knocked away. Are you saying that if the defense is able to knock the ball away the offense isn't shooting?

I am not claiming that. I am not claiming that a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled. I am claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled if he wants fouls shots.

You are saying the burden is on me to supply the citiation....which is hilarious considering you replied to my initial post saying "Not the rule." I then asked you to supply the rule and you countered by repeating my question back to me. Great defense. I am guessing you are hesitant to supply such a rule or citation because none exists. I would love to be proven wrong though, simply reply with the case/rule book citation and I will apologize.

10-6 penalty tells us two shots if a player is fouled in the act of shooting.

It says nothing about what happens after the foul.

Where is the argument here?

You're really funny. You're claiming exactly that. You're saying he can't get FTs if he is shooting but gives up after getting fouled and can't get the shot off due to the foul. The only thing the rules care about is what he was doing at the instant he was fouled, not what comes after.

Clever argument. You're the one claiming a player must continue to shoot after being fouled in order to still be considered to be shooting. As the one making that claim, it would be upon you to provide the citation to back up that claim.


In any case, here are the rules (and you'll find nothing in them that supports your claim):

No, I'm saying if he gets fouled and decides to pass the ball instead of attempt a shot, then I'm not giving him FT's. I consider the play as a whole, I don't try to guess what he was doing. I call what he actually did.

I am claiming that. Unlike you however, I am not claiming any rules basis. Why do I need to provide a rules reference if I am not appealing to one? You are the one who countered that my method of determining shooting versus passing does not follow the rule. Thus, the burden to provide a rule reference lies with you and you alone :)

Thanks for that rule reference. As I thought, it is up to my (sometimes poor) judgement to determine whether a player is shooting or passing. My method for doing so involves seeing the play start, develop, and finish and making a judgement based on what the player actually does. I am sorry if my method perterbs you, but I cannot read a players mind as to what he wants to do. What he does is what I call.

When I first saw the play I was perplexed as to why he was given 2 shots. Now that I have a chance to see it replayed I agree he was going up and the ball popped out to Young.

However, when I saw it on TV I thought there was no foul to begin with, and after seeing the replay, I still think there was no foul.

I could go with a no foul if I had a look at primary defenders actions on the ball handlers left arm. The L has a good look at that play so I'm going to believe there was contact.

Correct. You can not tell from camera angle if #13 made contact or not. I defer to the lead official, the one who had the best look.

If the player is fouled while in the act of shooting, shoot the throws.

The L obviously felt he was -- no hesitation. I'm happy to defer to that judgment -- he's the one who saw the entire thing right in front of him.

The problem with this play is that the offensive player had no way of continuing that shooting motion once the ball was knocked out by the foul.

So, you're making a ruling with no rules basis. Why? The definition of what the act of shooting is is pretty clear. Why not follow it? I prefer to follow what the rules say. Not make up my own and ask people to prove something that is made up is false.

I gave you the rule which defines act of shooting. You're choosing to ignore it. What rule allows you to do so?

Freeze frame at the time of the foul. What is the player doing at that moment? That is how the rules define the situation and how you should be ruling it. Anything else is your own made up interpretation.

Then you are misapplying the whole concept of SDF. It has nothing to do with determining if the player was shooting or not. It is ONLY about deciding if a foul occurred or now.

You personal interpretation is rewarding defender for fouling. You're making the shooter guess whether you're going to blow the whistle or not. With your interpretation, they have to assume you are going to blow the whistle and still try to complete the shot. Then, if you don't, they're left with no option. The pass they could have made is no longer available and they lose the ball. That is an unfair burden to put on the shooter who was fouled.

I prefer to follow the rules too, but your claim is nonsensical. I didn't make up a rule, nor am I controverting or ignoring any rule. The rule says it is up to the "official’s judgment" to determine shooting versus passing. My method of determining shooting vs. passing is different than yours, that is all. I'm sorry if you disagree with my method.

There is no rule that says "if the player is intending to shoot (regardless of shooting motion or not) when he is fouled but passes the ball after the foul you must give FT's". As I have said several times, my method for making that shooting vs. passing judgement involves seeing the play start, develop, and finish and making a call based on what the player does.

I can't ignore a rule that doesn't exist :)

If they are shooting, they will try to shoot. If they are passing, they will try to pass. We cannot use the starting of the shooting motion to determine whether a player is actually shooting or not. Why not? Because (even absent a foul) players will go up as if to shoot and then pass the ball to a teammate in a better position. We can only be patient with our whistle and make a decision based on the outcome.

Losing the ball doesn't matter cuz the situation is assuming we call a foul.

In this case, losing the ball matters a lot. He didn't shoot because he no longer had the ball due to the foul that occurred while he was trying to shoot the ball.

The rules are indeed clear. The rules define a try as starting when they start the shooting motion (with no qualification that they complete it). The rules define it as a shooting foul if the player was trying to to shoot when fouled. The rules also say that what follows doesn't matter....they don't have to release the shot. To then determine whether it is a shot or not based on what follows the foul is simply not correct by rule. You've screwed the shooter out of deserved FTs by doing so.

You're trying to call it judgement but it really isn't. You've already admitted that you decision isn't based on how the rules define a try (which is clearly defined in the definitions) but something else that is not in the rules. Nothing in the rules support outcome based decisions. They say exactly the opposite....it is about what the player is trying to do when they get foul. Judgement is supposed to be based on rules fundamentals, not on criteria that have no rules basis.