Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

... 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by 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.

Arem - read this. It states that you do have to read his mind (i.e., use your judgement) and determine intent. And, you have to do it by his original intent. In other words, at the time he was fouled. Sorry, but, you are incorrect to wait for what happens after the foul. It specifically states that you are to ignore the subsequent pass-off.

[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.

[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.