Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

I agree he had a better look than me. But when I initially saw the play I'm thinking 1) that's not a foul 2) that's not a shooting foul. That combination had me verklempt

I'm actually glad the replay showed the official on the spot made the right decision about it being a shooting foul.

My opinion about the contact is just Armchair Officiating.

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Depends where you work, and whom you work for.

Like other things we could name, you can call it any way you want and should do what the bosses want. But if you knowingly take away the free throws because contact causes the shooter to change his try to a pass, you have no rules support in doing so.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Like other things we could name, you can call it any way you want and should do what the bosses want. But if you knowingly take away the free throws because contact causes the shooter to change his try to a pass, you have no rules support in doing so.

It's not only supervisors, it's also coaches. You start giving guys 2 shots on plays where players passed the ball and you'll be getting calls on the drive home after the coach calls the supervisor.

Coaches write the rules. Coaches in every entity I worked expect players that pass the ball after contact not to be awarded a shooting foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Coaches write the rules. Coaches in every entity I worked expect players that pass the ball after contact not to be awarded a shooting foul.

When the foul went against their team, I'm sure that's true.

Again, this expectation flies in the face of the rule, as written. If coaches don't like this rule, they should see that it's changed.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When the foul went against their team, I'm sure that's true....

When it's goes against their team, 100% of the time the coach yells at their player for not shooting. I have never had an exception to this scenario.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Depends where you work, and whom you work for.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...
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.

What inconsistency? It's called the same way all the time in every game I've officiated or seen.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Well said.