Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

"But I was shooting, coach! Until that goon dislocated my elbow."

[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.

[JetMetFan]

Since my name popped up in here I'm just going to chime in on the OP.

Based on what I can see the call on the floor appears to be correct. At first glance it looks A1 is in the act of shooting, B1 fouls him, knocks the ball out of his hands and it goes into the hands of A2. A2 just happened to be in the right place to catch the ball.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is so blatantly wrong I can no longer take any other thing you might say on here seriously.

I am disappointed to hear this type of unprofessional comment coming from an administrator. I have been very reasonable and done my best to clarify my point of view, and I would hope you would at least respect my effort.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

I have yet to hear of a rule reference that specifically says "if the player is intending to shoot (regardless of shooting motion or not) when he is fouled but passes the ball after the foul you must give FT's". Could you provide one?

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

Never said that. If he is trying to complete a try and is fouled, he will shoot FT's. If, instead of trying to complete a try the player decides to pass the ball, he will not be shooting FT's.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Also, your claim that the offensive player "decided" to pass the ball is wrong. The ball was knocked out by the defender.

At this point we are no longer discussing the play in the OP, but rather the theory behind this type of play.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

That is exactly the play I am talking about, there is no difference.

Originally Posted by Adam

I recall a pretty long debate not to long ago where quite a few took just that position. If a player starts to shoot, gets fouled, and then passes the ball, many here are going with a pass and thus no free throws (unless in the bonus).

Originally Posted by just another ref

we had a similar discussion not too long ago.

You recall correctly. That debate was a result of a play that I was involved in. I posted the story on The Forum and this same debate occurred. Here is the link to that discussion. Go ahead and read through the thread. I'm not sure where they stand now, but BNR, JRut, johnny d, APG, and JetMet were the posters who agreed with my point of view. In fact, their arguments in that thread were what formed the view I currently hold, and have been defending in this thread. Those guys are good refs, and when we discussed this last year I trusted what they said.

Given that the two prominent dissenting posters (JAR, Cam Rust) in the thread last year are the same ones debating me in this thread, I will end my comments here. I believe we know where each other stand