Shooting Foul? (Video)

[IUgrad92]

A couple of terms that were stressed heavily this year in our association were 'gather' and 'habitual shooting motion'. I'm surprised I haven't seen any reference to those terms in this thread or maybe I just missed them. The player in this OP was definitely in his habitual shooting motion, which just means he had taken the initial actions in shooting the ball. That information is all that is needed by an official to determine awarding shots or not if a foul occurs after the habitual shooting motion has started.

I'll admit, at the beginning of the season, my though process was more 'old school' in the sense that a player had to actually shoot or attempt to shoot for me to award free throws, because what if the player passed the ball after the foul??? Somewhat similar to where AremRed is with his philosophy, but I bought in 100% to watching for the 'gather' and it made life a lot easier. Not one coach all season complained once I said the player had gathered the ball and was in his shooting motion at the time of the foul. It didn't matter if the player passed, stood still after contact, or whatever, at the time of the foul if the player had gathered the ball to begin his shooting process, we shot free throws.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

Well there is a case play that covers this if it matters to you (I believe). We had this discussion in one of my association meetings and this play was referenced. And the conclusion in this case play appeared to be that we still give shots despite what the player might do in the end.

I will have to look for the play, but it was a referenced when the very same question was asked to our higher-ups in the state.

But still you have to officiate and make these decisions based on what you see and experience tells you. If someone clearly passes the ball away, chances are they were not shooting. And if they want to get shots, then act like you are shooting. But that is just my opinion.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well there is a case play that covers this if it matters to you (I believe). We had this discussion in one of my association meetings and this play was referenced. And the conclusion in this case play appeared to be that we still give shots despite what the player might do in the end.

I see no need for a case play, but since there is doubt for some it wouldn't hurt. The interp posted above leaves 0 room for doubt, in my opinion.

"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."

Others disagree, including you, apparently.

If someone clearly passes the ball away, chances are they were not shooting. And if they want to get shots, then act like you are shooting. But that is just my opinion.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I see no need for a case play, but since there is doubt for some it wouldn't hurt. The interp posted above leaves 0 room for doubt, in my opinion.

"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."

Others disagree, including you, apparently.

There obviously is a need because there was a debate here and in my area or association if and when to award shots.

I only disagree if the player was not prevented from shooting and then passes but a foul is still appropriate to call. It is not always easy to officiate while reading something on paper. We all know there are situations where the ball handler is clearly not trying to shoot. I do not see just giving them FTs just because they could have shot and clearly were not shooting the ball.

Peace

[Adam]

The thing is, the interp leaves it as a given that the player was shooting. We don't get to officiate with givens, and that's really where the previous disagreement came into play.

If there's doubt about whether the player is shooting, sometimes we have to see the action after the foul to make that determination. If there's no doubt, then by rule it doesn't matter. This is where the disagreement comes into play, and it's why I don't think it's going to affect more than a few plays for each of us during our careers.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

The thing is, the interp leaves it as a given that the player was shooting. We don't get to officiate with givens, and that's really where the previous disagreement came into play.

If there's doubt about whether the player is shooting, sometimes we have to see the action after the foul to make that determination. If there's no doubt, then by rule it doesn't matter. This is where the disagreement comes into play, and it's why I don't think it's going to affect more than a few plays for each of us during our careers.

Exactly. Seeing the whole play helps me determine whether or not it is shooting foul. You have some officials who assume everyone who jumped in the air with the ball is shooting.

There are many set plays now where the PG goes to the paint, launches himself in the air, then kicks it out to a 3-point shooter, or a cutter coming down the middle of the paint. When I officiate I pay attention to what the primary ball-handlers do during the course of the game.

Supervisors I work for get upset when we put a whistle on a play where a guard gets bumped a little in the paint and then passes to a big man who is now having his dunk or lay-up waved off. And they definitely don't want us to turn around and then say the guy who just passed the ball was really shooting.

[rockyroad]

So basically we are all now "changing" plays in order to make our respective points. So getting back to the original video that was posted, and not trying to change the play to fit our personal agendas...

Two shots on the play or not?

I say yes.

And you all say???

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So basically we are all now "changing" plays in order to make our respective points. So getting back to the original video that was posted, and not trying to change the play to fit our personal agendas...

Two shots on the play or not?

I say yes.

And you all say???

Yes, this was not a pass.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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

I've heard no contradiction to this ruling.

In the OP, we're shooting 2 shots.

Thanks, Juggling...that pretty much closes this discussion.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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)

The NFHS, here, has very explicitly said that a pass after the foul means nothing whatsoever. Whether the player goes to the line depends ONLY on the player being in a shooting motion when fouled. Nothing else matters.

We already have to judge when the shooting motion begins for many other reasons. So, if the motion up to the foul looks like any other shot, the player should be going to the line.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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



I've heard no contradiction to this ruling.

In the OP, we're shooting 2 shots.

Thanks, Juggling...that pretty much closes this discussion.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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)

The NFHS, here, has very explicitly said that a pass after the foul means nothing whatsoever. Whether the player goes to the line depends ONLY on the player being in a shooting motion when fouled. Nothing else matters.

We already have to judge when the shooting motion begins for many other reasons. So, if the motion up to the foul looks like any other shot, the player should be going to the line.

Not my interpretation, but directly from the NFHS in very clear terms.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So basically we are all now "changing" plays in order to make our respective points. So getting back to the original video that was posted, and not trying to change the play to fit our personal agendas...

Two shots on the play or not?

I say yes.

And you all say???

The original play is yesterday's news. Even I admitted that it was a shooting foul and I started the thread.

We've now moved on to the philosoply that every time a player jumps in the air with the ball they are judged to be shooting, no matter what. Even if during the entire game they driven to the hole and passed off every time. They've taken 0 shots and have 15 assists, but if they get fouled, they were shooting.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The original play is yesterday's news. Even I admitted that it was a shooting foul and I started the thread.

We've now moved on to the philosoply that every time a player jumps in the air with the ball they are judged to be shooting, no matter what. Even if during the entire game they driven to the hole and passed off every time. They've taken 0 shots and have 15 assists, but if they get fouled, they were shooting.

BNR, I don't think anyone here has stated anything remotely resembling this.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

BNR, I don't think anyone here has stated anything remotely resembling this.

"...So, if the motion up to the foul looks like any other shot, the player should be going to the line..."

That statement takes nothing into account other than raising the ball in an upward motion. That action looks the same whether passing or shooting.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"...So, if the motion up to the foul looks like any other shot, the player should be going to the line..."

That statement takes nothing into account other than raising the ball in an upward motion. That action looks the same whether passing or shooting.

Yep. If it looks like the start of a shot, it is the start of a shot. The act of shooting is defined by the motions which usually precede a shot, not just jumping, but specific arm/foot movements too. I can tell the difference between a player starting to go up for shot and a pass. They don't look anything alike. Are you not able to tell when a player is trying to shoot? Do you never award FTs unless the ball hits the rim since anything else might have been a pass?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...They don't look anything alike. Are you not able to tell when a player is trying to shoot? Do you never award FTs unless the ball hits the rim since anything else might have been a pass?

Quit with the nonsense. PGs going to the hole (not Reggie Miller taking a jump shot) take off the same way whether passing or shooting. Guess nobody in Oregon never drives and kicks out.