When it's goes against their team, 100% of the time the coach yells at their player for not shooting. I have never had an exception to this scenario.

"But I was shooting, coach! Until that goon dislocated my elbow."

Has never happened. Can only go by my experiences and the expectations where I work.

I'm sure a person with a dislocated elbow is just as incapable of passing the ball as he is of shooting the ball. He would most likely drop the ball, and his team awarded 2 shots for the flagrant/IF anyway :p

I am disappointed to hear this type of unprofessional comment coming from an administrator. I have been very reasonable and done my best to clarify my point of view, and I would hope you would at least respect my effort.

I have yet to hear of a rule reference that specifically 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". Could you provide one?

Never said that. If he is trying to complete a try and is fouled, he will shoot FT's. If, instead of trying to complete a try the player decides to pass the ball, he will not be shooting FT's.

At this point we are no longer discussing the play in the OP, but rather the theory behind this type of play.

That is exactly the play I am talking about, there is no difference.

You recall correctly. That debate was a result of a play that I was involved in. I posted the story on The Forum and this same debate occurred. Here is the link to that discussion. Go ahead and read through the thread. I'm not sure where they stand now, but BNR, JRut, johnny d, APG, and JetMet were the posters who agreed with my point of view. In fact, their arguments in that thread were what formed the view I currently hold, and have been defending in this thread. Those guys are good refs, and when we discussed this last year I trusted what they said.

Given that the two prominent dissenting posters (JAR, Cam Rust) in the thread last year are the same ones debating me in this thread, I will end my comments here. I believe we know where each other stand :)

I'm with the majority on the other thread. If the player passes, we're not shooting.

This is not that thread. Here, we're shooting.

So just for kicks and giggles I went back and read through (most of) that old thread...that's a completely different situation than the play posted here, and you know it, Arem. The play posted in this video is not a player who decides to pass...it is a player who gets fouled and has the ball knocked out of his hands, thus he is not able to complete the shot.

Arem...Are you still saying you would not give free throws in the play posted in the video in this thread?

i had 2 shots on first view. Don't see what's so tough about this. didn't look like a pass at all IMO.

EDIT: this play and the one from a previous discussion are TWO completely different things. One was an intended pass and one was an intended shot that looked like a pass because the foul dislodged the ball. Completely different plays.

Not really. It is just as wrong everywhere. It is happens to be a bad interpretation that happens to be accepted in some places.

That, right there, says it all. You just made my point. They were shooting but the shot has ended. Fouled while they were shooting....FTs coming. End of discussion.

If I understand correctly now, it is a given in both plays under discussion that the player was in the act of shooting. Some say he gets no shots if it is obvious that the contact changes his intention, while others say he gets no shots if he's not obviously still trying to shoot regardless of his intentions.


There is no way to justify this that I can see.

I don't think it's a given. The previous discussion included many who would argue that if the player proceeds to pass after he fouled, then they would judge he was going to pass all along.

I disagree, although I think the number of plays this would affect over the course of a given official's career is likely to be less than a handful.

Well, lets say it is a given. I believe AremRed said something like: He was shooting, then after the foul he was no longer shooting.

Probably not real common. But, hey, discussing plays like that is kinda what we do here.

While not every play or even every game, I see these sorts of plays several times per year. It isn't that rare. This discussion is really more about being willing to make the right call vs the easy call.

Agreed, my initials thoughts about the play I asked for were wrong, A1 was in fact shooting when he was fouled.

But in the other thread my view still stands as I posted in response to jar in this thread.