Shooting Foul? (Video)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I prefer to follow the rules too, but your claim is nonsensical. I didn't make up a rule, nor am I controverting or ignoring any rule. The rule says it is up to the "official’s judgment" to determine shooting versus passing. My method of determining shooting vs. passing is different than yours, that is all. I'm sorry if you disagree with my method.

....

The rules are indeed clear. The rules define a try as starting when they start the shooting motion (with no qualification that they complete it). The rules define it as a shooting foul if the player was trying to to shoot when fouled. The rules also say that what follows doesn't matter....they don't have to release the shot. To then determine whether it is a shot or not based on what follows the foul is simply not correct by rule. You've screwed the shooter out of deserved FTs by doing so.

You're trying to call it judgement but it really isn't. You've already admitted that you decision isn't based on how the rules define a try (which is clearly defined in the definitions) but something else that is not in the rules. Nothing in the rules support outcome based decisions. They say exactly the opposite....it is about what the player is trying to do when they get foul. Judgement is supposed to be based on rules fundamentals, not on criteria that have no rules basis.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rules are indeed clear. The rules define a try as starting when they start the shooting motion (with no qualification that they complete it).

Correct, 4-41-2 says a player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for goal". The way I use my officials judgement is through the process that I have explained several times before: I wait until I see the whole play start, develop, and finish and then make my decision on the whole play, not just one aspect. If a player is trying to shoot, they will continue to shoot. If the player passes, he is not trying to shoot.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rules also say that what follows doesn't matter....they don't have to release the shot.

Correct again. They do not have to release the shot.....but if they try to pass then the try is over; they are no longer shooting and thus are no longer entitled to FT's.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're trying to call it judgement but it really isn't.

I don't need to call it judgement. The rules themselves call it judgement. You are the one contradicting the rules here -- you are saying this is not s judgement when the rules say it is.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You've already admitted that you decision isn't based on how the rules define a try (which is clearly defined in the definitions) but something else that is not in the rules.

False. My view correlates with what the rulebook says, and I feel I have explained it well. I am not throwing out how the rules define a try, or how they define the start or end of a try.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nothing in the rules support outcome based decisions.

The rules clearly say it is up to the officials judgement. In my judgement, I use outcome-based decisions. Why would I do otherwise? I cannot read a players mind, I can only call what I see.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Correct again. They do not have to release the shot.....but if they try to pass then the try is over; they are no longer shooting and thus are no longer entitled to FT's.

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't think it's a given.

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.

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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'm not making the concession that is bolded. The more training I get from officials who are a lot better and more seasoned than me, the more I operate under SDF principles. SDF applies to the older thread.