Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

One coach will agree with that, one will not on any given call. Calling it a pass is a compromise call to give one the benefit of a foul but give the other the benefit of it being OOB. I've long been taught that a player IS shooting if there is any question whether a player was shooting or not. That philosophy is widely held and solves this situation perfectly.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

There are passes where the player abandons the shot seeing they are about to be hit and passes. That is what the "no shot-passoffs" mechanic would be for, not for those where the player IS shooting, gets clobbered, can't get the shot off, but loses it or drops it off where a team mate picks it up.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... can't get the shot off, but loses it or drops it off where a team mate picks it up.

Now you're making up an entirely different scenario that no one is discussing.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are passes where the player abandons the shot seeing they are about to be hit and passes. That is what the "no shot-passoffs" mechanic would be for, not for those where the player IS shooting, gets clobbered, can't get the shot off, but loses it or drops it off where a team mate picks it up.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Now you're making up an entirely different scenario that no one is discussing.

So where do we draw the line? If a player goes up for a shot, that's what he's doing, no doubt in anyone's mind, then gets clobbered and, just before he crashes to the floor, instinctively pushes the ball toward a teammate. Does he get free throws or not?

[JugglingReferee]

bob's post from the previous thread sums it up for me (my bold):

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2000-2001 Interps Supplement:

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)

I've heard no contradiction to this ruling.

In the OP, we're shooting 2 shots.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So where do we draw the line? If a player goes up for a shot, that's what he's doing, no doubt in anyone's mind, then gets clobbered and, just before he crashes to the floor, instinctively pushes the ball toward a teammate. Does he get free throws or not?

Not the play we're talking about.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So where do we draw the line? If a player goes up for a shot, that's what he's doing, no doubt in anyone's mind, then gets clobbered and, just before he crashes to the floor, instinctively pushes the ball toward a teammate. Does he get free throws or not?

Well there is a case play that covers this if it matters to you (I believe). We had this discussion in one of my association meetings and this play was referenced. And the conclusion in this case play appeared to be that we still give shots despite what the player might do in the end.

I will have to look for the play, but it was a referenced when the very same question was asked to our higher-ups in the state.

But still you have to officiate and make these decisions based on what you see and experience tells you. If someone clearly passes the ball away, chances are they were not shooting. And if they want to get shots, then act like you are shooting. But that is just my opinion.

Peace