Shooting Foul? (Video)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Pass off. If you want the shots, continue to shoot. I'm not going to guess which one you intended.

Not the rule. It is what he was doing when he was fouled, not what he decided to do after. It is your job to decide what he was doing when he was fouled.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not the rule.

Citation?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is your job to decide what he was doing when he was fouled.

I watch the play start, develop, and finish before I make a ruling on what actually happened. The finish of this play is the player passing the ball to his friend when he realizes he cannot finish over the defender.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Citation?



I watch the play start, develop, and finish before I make a ruling on what actually happened. The finish of this play is the player passing the ball to his friend when he realizes he cannot finish over the defender.

You're the one claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled. It would be up to you to supply the citation that says they only get shots if they are able to continue to shoot after being fouled while trying to shoot. But that is hard to do when the ball is knocked away. Are you saying that if the defense is able to knock the ball away the offense isn't shooting?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're the one claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled. It would be up to you to supply the citation that says they only get shots if they are able to continue to shoot after being fouled while trying to shoot. But that is hard to do when the ball is knocked away. Are you saying that if the defense is able to knock the ball away the offense isn't shooting?

I am not claiming that. I am not claiming that a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled. I am claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled if he wants fouls shots.

You are saying the burden is on me to supply the citiation....which is hilarious considering you replied to my initial post saying "Not the rule." I then asked you to supply the rule and you countered by repeating my question back to me. Great defense. I am guessing you are hesitant to supply such a rule or citation because none exists. I would love to be proven wrong though, simply reply with the case/rule book citation and I will apologize.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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

I am guessing you are hesitant to supply such a rule or citation because none exists.

10-6 penalty tells us two shots if a player is fouled in the act of shooting.

It says nothing about what happens after the foul.

Where is the argument here?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I am not claiming that. I am not claiming that a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled. I am claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled if he wants fouls shots.

You're really funny. You're claiming exactly that. You're saying he can't get FTs if he is shooting but gives up after getting fouled and can't get the shot off due to the foul. The only thing the rules care about is what he was doing at the instant he was fouled, not what comes after.

Originally Posted by AremRed

You are saying the burden is on me to supply the citiation....which is hilarious considering you replied to my initial post saying "Not the rule." I then asked you to supply the rule and you countered by repeating my question back to me. Great defense. I am guessing you are hesitant to supply such a rule or citation because none exists. I would love to be proven wrong though, simply reply with the case/rule book citation and I will apologize.

Clever argument. You're the one claiming a player must continue to shoot after being fouled in order to still be considered to be shooting. As the one making that claim, it would be upon you to provide the citation to back up that claim.


In any case, here are the rules (and you'll find nothing in them that supports your claim):

4-41-2 A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player’s hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.

10-6 Penalty:

Fouled in act of shooting and try or tap is unsuccessful:
a. Two free throws on two-point try or tap.
b. Three free throws on three-point try or tap.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're saying he can't get FTs if he is shooting but gives up after getting fouled and can't get the shot off due to the foul.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Clever argument. You're the one claiming a player must continue to shoot after being fouled in order to still be considered to be shooting. As the one making that claim, it would be upon you to provide the citation to back up that claim.

I am claiming that. Unlike you however, I am not claiming any rules basis. Why do I need to provide a rules reference if I am not appealing to one? You are the one who countered that my method of determining shooting versus passing does not follow the rule. Thus, the burden to provide a rule reference lies with you and you alone

Thanks for that rule reference. As I thought, it is up to my (sometimes poor) judgement to determine whether a player is shooting or passing. My method for doing so involves seeing the play start, develop, and finish and making a judgement based on what the player actually does. I am sorry if my method perterbs you, but I cannot read a players mind as to what he wants to do. What he does is what I call.

[Adam]

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.



I am claiming that. Unlike you however, I am not claiming any rules basis. Why do I need to provide a rules reference if I am not appealing to one? You are the one who countered that my method of determining shooting versus passing does not follow the rule. Thus, the burden to provide a rule reference lies with you and you alone

Thanks for that rule reference. As I thought, it is up to my (sometimes poor) judgement to determine whether a player is shooting or passing. My method for doing so involves seeing the play start, develop, and finish and making a judgement based on what the player actually does. I am sorry if my method perterbs you, but I cannot read a players mind as to what he wants to do. What he does is what I call.

The problem with this play is that the offensive player had no way of continuing that shooting motion once the ball was knocked out by the foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I am claiming that. Unlike you however, I am not claiming any rules basis. Why do I need to provide a rules reference if I am not appealing to one?

So, you're making a ruling with no rules basis. Why? The definition of what the act of shooting is is pretty clear. Why not follow it? I prefer to follow what the rules say. Not make up my own and ask people to prove something that is made up is false.

Originally Posted by AremRed

You are the one who countered that my method of determining shooting versus passing does not follow the rule. Thus, the burden to provide a rule reference lies with you and you alone

I gave you the rule which defines act of shooting. You're choosing to ignore it. What rule allows you to do so?

Freeze frame at the time of the foul. What is the player doing at that moment? That is how the rules define the situation and how you should be ruling it. Anything else is your own made up interpretation.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Thanks for that rule reference. As I thought, it is up to my (sometimes poor) judgement to determine whether a player is shooting or passing. My method for doing so involves seeing the play start, develop, and finish and making a judgement based on what the player actually does. I am sorry if my method perterbs you, but I cannot read a players mind as to what he wants to do. What he does is what I call.

Then you are misapplying the whole concept of SDF. It has nothing to do with determining if the player was shooting or not. It is ONLY about deciding if a foul occurred or now.

You personal interpretation is rewarding defender for fouling. You're making the shooter guess whether you're going to blow the whistle or not. With your interpretation, they have to assume you are going to blow the whistle and still try to complete the shot. Then, if you don't, they're left with no option. The pass they could have made is no longer available and they lose the ball. That is an unfair burden to put on the shooter who was fouled.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.