Shooting Foul? (Video)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

This is so blatantly wrong I can no longer take any other thing you might say on here seriously. ALL that matters is what he was doing at the moment of the foul. Whatever happens afterward is completely irrelevant - and the rule says pretty much exactly that.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I am claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled if he wants fouls shots.

Wow.

So if you are officiating, all I need do as a defender is wrap up the shooters arms so that he can't continue to shoot...then he won't get any free throws. Nice.

Also, your claim that the offensive player "decided" to pass the ball is wrong. The ball was knocked out by the defender.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is so blatantly wrong I can no longer take any other thing you might say on here seriously. ALL that matters is what he was doing at the moment of the foul. Whatever happens afterward is completely irrelevant - and the rule says pretty much exactly that.

I recall a pretty long debate not to long ago where quite a few took just that position. If a player starts to shoot, gets fouled, and then passes the ball, many here are going with a pass and thus no free throws (unless in the bonus).

In the OP, if the player hadn't had the ball knocked away from him, a few more would advocate for no shots.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

... The ball was knocked out by the defender.

Back to my point.

But yes, it was knocked out, he did not pass it as I orignially thought when I saw it on TV.

[just another ref]

This is slightly different, but we had a similar discussion not too long ago. The difference was that in the other play, after the contact, the shooter couldn't complete the shot, so he obviously changed his effort and passed to a teammate. Several said they wouldn't give him free throws if he passed after the foul.

That was wrong then. This is wrong now.

jmo

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is slightly different, but we had a similar discussion not too long ago. The difference was that in the other play, after the contact, the shooter couldn't complete the shot, so he obviously changed his effort and passed to a teammate. Several said they wouldn't give him free throws if he passed after the foul.

That was wrong then. This is wrong now.
jmo

Depends where you work, and whom you work for.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

I recall a pretty long debate not to long ago where quite a few took just that position. If a player starts to shoot, gets fouled, and then passes the ball, many here are going with a pass and thus no free throws (unless in the bonus).

In the OP, if the player hadn't had the ball knocked away from him, a few more would advocate for no shots.

I remember that. I believe that most, then, were saying that they couldn't award shots if the player passed the ball because they could not read the player's mind and didn't know if he was initially passing or shooting. Arem, however, said "if he gets fouled and decides to pass the ball instead of attempt a shot" - CLEARLY stating that this decision was AFTER the foul. The former is wrong (imho). The latter ... so incredibly wrong it can't be justified.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I remember that. I believe that most, then, were saying that they couldn't award shots if the player passed the ball because they could not read the player's mind and didn't know if he was initially passing or shooting. Arem, however, said "if he gets fouled and decides to pass the ball instead of attempt a shot" - CLEARLY stating that this decision was AFTER the foul. The former is wrong (imho). The latter ... so incredibly wrong it can't be justified.

I really don't see a practical difference between the two.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Depends where you work, and whom you work for.

Like other things we could name, you can call it any way you want and should do what the bosses want. But if you knowingly take away the free throws because contact causes the shooter to change his try to a pass, you have no rules support in doing so.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I remember that. I believe that most, then, were saying that they couldn't award shots if the player passed the ball because they could not read the player's mind and didn't know if he was initially passing or shooting. Arem, however, said "if he gets fouled and decides to pass the ball instead of attempt a shot" - CLEARLY stating that this decision was AFTER the foul. The former is wrong (imho). The latter ... so incredibly wrong it can't be justified.

If you can't tell what he was doing prior to the contact, well, you'll just have to make that decision anyway, one way or the other. Different officials seem to lean in different directions on this.

But in the case I'm remembering, it was a given that it was a shot attempt, but the contact forced the change to a pass. Some said they still wouldn't award free throws. BNR may be one of these and could elaborate.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).

Correct, 4-41-2 says a player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for goal". The way I use my officials judgement is through the process that I have explained several times before: I wait until I see the whole play start, develop, and finish and then make my decision on the whole play, not just one aspect. If a player is trying to shoot, they will continue to shoot. If the player passes, he is not trying to shoot.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rules also say that what follows doesn't matter....they don't have to release the shot.

Correct again. They do not have to release the shot.....but if they try to pass then the try is over; they are no longer shooting and thus are no longer entitled to FT's.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're trying to call it judgement but it really isn't.

I don't need to call it judgement. The rules themselves call it judgement. You are the one contradicting the rules here -- you are saying this is not s judgement when the rules say it is.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

False. My view correlates with what the rulebook says, and I feel I have explained it well. I am not throwing out how the rules define a try, or how they define the start or end of a try.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nothing in the rules support outcome based decisions.

The rules clearly say it is up to the officials judgement. In my judgement, I use outcome-based decisions. Why would I do otherwise? I cannot read a players mind, I can only call what I see.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Back to my point.

But yes, it was knocked out, he did not pass it as I orignially thought when I saw it on TV.

Ahhhh yes. Was so astounded by the stupidity of previous comments that I missed your point.

Not sure it was a foul or not. The L sure had a good look though.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Like other things we could name, you can call it any way you want and should do what the bosses want. But if you knowingly take away the free throws because contact causes the shooter to change his try to a pass, you have no rules support in doing so.

It's not only supervisors, it's also coaches. You start giving guys 2 shots on plays where players passed the ball and you'll be getting calls on the drive home after the coach calls the supervisor.

Coaches write the rules. Coaches in every entity I worked expect players that pass the ball after contact not to be awarded a shooting foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Ahhhh yes. Was so astounded by the stupidity of previous comments that I missed your point.

Not sure it was a foul or not. The L sure had a good look though.

I agree he had a better look than me. But when I initially saw the play I'm thinking 1) that's not a foul 2) that's not a shooting foul. That combination had me verklempt

I'm actually glad the replay showed the official on the spot made the right decision about it being a shooting foul.

My opinion about the contact is just Armchair Officiating.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Coaches write the rules. Coaches in every entity I worked expect players that pass the ball after contact not to be awarded a shooting foul.

When the foul went against their team, I'm sure that's true.

Again, this expectation flies in the face of the rule, as written. If coaches don't like this rule, they should see that it's changed.