Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 928713)

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

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 928720)

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 928728)

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 928728)

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.

Originally Posted by APG (Post 928737)

The NCAA added the "no shot-pass off" mechanic a couple of years ago. The exact mechanic that is used in situations that were discussed in the previous thread mentioned earlier. And seeing as the rules on this subject are the same for college and high school, it would appear, at least for college, there are those that don't view your version of the "right call" as correct.

And that would go hand in hand in that how you handle this will depend on how the powers that be in your area want this handled.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 928736)

What you call the "easy call" is what coaches and supervisors have deemed the "right call".

Your comment, "This discussion is really more about being willing to make the right call vs the easy call" is what coaches and supervisors deem being arrogant.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 928734)

What makes you the purveyor of what is right or wrong? I'll repeat, coaches sit on the rules committee, coaches have an expectation of what they want called a shooting foul and what they don't want called a shooting foul.

Maybe you're are just not willing to accept that your interpretation of the spirit and intent of the rule is just flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 928741)

... can't get the shot off, but loses it or drops it off where a team mate picks it up.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 928743)

...
These types of interpretations that are outside the rules (and there are several like them) is one of the biggest things wrong with officiating and is a recipe for continued inconsistency. If they want it different than the rules state, then they should change the rules.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 928741)

There are passes where the player abandons the shot seeing they are about to be hit and passes. That is what the "no shot-passoffs" mechanic would be for, not for those where the player IS shooting, gets clobbered, can't get the shot off, but loses it or drops it off where a team mate picks it up.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 928744)

Now you're making up an entirely different scenario that no one is discussing.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 875274)

2000-2001 Interps Supplement:

SITUATION 3: A1 is in the act of shooting and is fouled by B1. The contact by B1 throws A1 off balance and in an effort to make a play A1 passes off to teammate A2 instead of proceeding through with an off-balance shot. The official rules that the pass-off by A1 is not a factor as it was not the original intent and only the result of the contact by B1. RULING: A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul committed by B1. COMMENT: Provided the official deems that A1 was in the act of shooting when fouled (the player had begun the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball for a try), the subsequent pass-off is ignored. (4-40-3; 4-40-1; Summary of Penalties #5)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 928743)

I'm going by what they put in the rule, not some hidden message between the lines that isn't in the rule and contradicts what is actually in the rule. If they want a player's shooting status to depend on something other than how it is defined, perhaps they should change how it is defined.

These types of interpretations that are outside the rules (and there are several like them) is one of the biggest things wrong with officiating and is a recipe for continued inconsistency. If they want it different than the rules state, then they should change the rules.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 928756)

bob's post from the previous thread sums it up for me (my bold):

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
2000-2001 Interps Supplement:

SITUATION 3: A1 is in the act of shooting and is fouled by B1. The contact by B1 throws A1 off balance and in an effort to make a play A1 passes off to teammate A2 instead of proceeding through with an off-balance shot. The official rules that the pass-off by A1 is not a factor as it was not the original intent and only the result of the contact by B1. RULING: A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul committed by B1. COMMENT: Provided the official deems that A1 was in the act of shooting when fouled (the player had begun the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball for a try), the subsequent pass-off is ignored. (4-40-3; 4-40-1; Summary of Penalties #5)

I've heard no contradiction to this ruling.

In the OP, we're shooting 2 shots.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 928748)

So where do we draw the line? If a player goes up for a shot, that's what he's doing, no doubt in anyone's mind, then gets clobbered and, just before he crashes to the floor, instinctively pushes the ball toward a teammate. Does he get free throws or not?