Shooting Foul? (Video)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The interpretation has existed for over 10 years....not like it just came out. And it matches what the rules say and have said forever, despite those that want to act like they don't exist.

So your final answer is yes, you're going to ignore the official interpretation and will continue to apply your own personal interpretation.

I am going to use common sense, which a lot of case plays or interpretations do not use. And yes there are other case plays I have issues with as well as other officials do when they read them. This is nothing new.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am going to use common sense, which a lot of case plays or interpretations do not use. And yes there are other case plays I have issues with as well as other officials do when they read them. This is nothing new.

Peace

You mean the common sense that says that a player who is fouled while attempting to shoot should get FTs.

I've yet to hear any even halfway sensible explanation why such a player doesn't deserve shots other than it is easier to justify the call because you can point to the subsequent pass.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You mean the common sense that says that a player who is fouled while attempting to shoot should get FTs.

No, the common sense that tells me when a player is clearly not shooting, do not act like they are shooting.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've yet to hear any even halfway sensible explanation why such a player doesn't deserve shots other than it is easier to justify the call because you can point to the subsequent pass.

As usual, not trying to convince you of anything. If you do not like it, do what you feel is best. Life will certainly go on.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, the common sense that tells me when a player is clearly not shooting, do not act like they are shooting.



As usual, not trying to convince you of anything. If you do not like it, do what you feel is best. Life will certainly go on.

Peace

It isn't that I don't like it. You're insisting on calling the game contrary to what the rules say. Why? Are you bigger than the game? You're acting like it.

Both you and Bad first resist calling it correctly by disputing what the rule is. Now, you have a clear interpretation that confirms my interpretation of the rule as correct, and you don't dispute the rule anymore but insist you're going to call it your way anyway. Keep wiggling so you don't have to admit you're wrong yet again. :/

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It isn't that I don't like it. You're insisting on calling the game contrary to what the rules say. Why? Are you bigger than the game? You're acting like it.

Both you and Bad first resist calling it correctly by disputing what the rule is. Now, you have a clear interpretation that confirms my interpretation of the rule as correct, and you don't dispute the rule anymore but insist you're going to call it your way anyway. Keep wiggling so you don't have to admit you're wrong yet again. :/

No, I think the "interpretation" does not consider all factors. I'm good Mr. Rust.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you can't tell what it is you have a problem. You have to decide......before the foul. Because what happens afterward doesn't matter, according to the NFHS.

It says nowhere in the rule when I have to decide. It talks about the judgment of the official. Officials who are constantly putting people on the line for 2 shots when they are passing the ball are guilty of not having a patient whistle.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It says nowhere in the rule when I have to decide. It talks about the judgment of the official. Officials who are constantly putting people on the line for 2 shots when they are passing the ball are guilty of not having a patient whistle.

And that is the key right there.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It says nowhere in the rule when I have to decide. It talks about the judgment of the official. Officials who are constantly putting people on the line for 2 shots when they are passing the ball are guilty of not having a patient whistle.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And that is the key right there.

Peace

I'm not in a race to put a whistle on a play as soon as contact occurs. Seems like some officials are in a rush to judge a play while it's still developing.

Originally Posted by 2000-01 NFHS ruling

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)

And this 13 year old interp says nothng about raising the ball. It does talk about what an official "deems" is a shot. I prefer to process all the information in making that determination.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And this 13 year old interp says nothng about raising the ball. It does talk about what an official "deems" is a shot. I prefer to process all the information in making that determination.

That is how I remember the interpretation. It does not say must or always.

And this is why we get paid the big bucks in the first place. Sometimes you just have to officiate.

Peace

[Terrapins Fan]

I like how you can have several different opinions on the same play.

That's reality in games. You see one thing, I see something different.

I had a play earlier this year, where I can C, play going to the basket from my PCA, Lead, from the other side of the lane, blows and shows offensive foul, at the same time I blow, neither of us heard the other, and give the block signal.

We come together and talk about what we have, he yields to me because it is coming from my PCA.

Yes, one of s should have held our signal, but we are told to sell it. We both did. I will try to be better in the future from C, but the truth is, if he called an OF, he would have been wrong. I would have to live with that. Fortunately it was not a close game.