Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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

I've heard no contradiction to this ruling.

In the OP, we're shooting 2 shots.

Thanks, Juggling...that pretty much closes this discussion.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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)

The NFHS, here, has very explicitly said that a pass after the foul means nothing whatsoever. Whether the player goes to the line depends ONLY on the player being in a shooting motion when fouled. Nothing else matters.

We already have to judge when the shooting motion begins for many other reasons. So, if the motion up to the foul looks like any other shot, the player should be going to the line.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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



I've heard no contradiction to this ruling.

In the OP, we're shooting 2 shots.

Thanks, Juggling...that pretty much closes this discussion.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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)

The NFHS, here, has very explicitly said that a pass after the foul means nothing whatsoever. Whether the player goes to the line depends ONLY on the player being in a shooting motion when fouled. Nothing else matters.

We already have to judge when the shooting motion begins for many other reasons. So, if the motion up to the foul looks like any other shot, the player should be going to the line.

Not my interpretation, but directly from the NFHS in very clear terms.

[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.

[IUgrad92]

A couple of terms that were stressed heavily this year in our association were 'gather' and 'habitual shooting motion'. I'm surprised I haven't seen any reference to those terms in this thread or maybe I just missed them. The player in this OP was definitely in his habitual shooting motion, which just means he had taken the initial actions in shooting the ball. That information is all that is needed by an official to determine awarding shots or not if a foul occurs after the habitual shooting motion has started.

I'll admit, at the beginning of the season, my though process was more 'old school' in the sense that a player had to actually shoot or attempt to shoot for me to award free throws, because what if the player passed the ball after the foul??? Somewhat similar to where AremRed is with his philosophy, but I bought in 100% to watching for the 'gather' and it made life a lot easier. Not one coach all season complained once I said the player had gathered the ball and was in his shooting motion at the time of the foul. It didn't matter if the player passed, stood still after contact, or whatever, at the time of the foul if the player had gathered the ball to begin his shooting process, we shot free throws.

[Terrapins Fan]

I like how you can have several different opinions on the same play.

That's reality in games. You see one thing, I see something different.

I had a play earlier this year, where I can C, play going to the basket from my PCA, Lead, from the other side of the lane, blows and shows offensive foul, at the same time I blow, neither of us heard the other, and give the block signal.

We come together and talk about what we have, he yields to me because it is coming from my PCA.

Yes, one of s should have held our signal, but we are told to sell it. We both did. I will try to be better in the future from C, but the truth is, if he called an OF, he would have been wrong. I would have to live with that. Fortunately it was not a close game.

[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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 see no need for a case play, but since there is doubt for some it wouldn't hurt. The interp posted above leaves 0 room for doubt, in my opinion.

"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."

Others disagree, including you, apparently.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I see no need for a case play, but since there is doubt for some it wouldn't hurt. The interp posted above leaves 0 room for doubt, in my opinion.

"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."

Others disagree, including you, apparently.

There obviously is a need because there was a debate here and in my area or association if and when to award shots.

I only disagree if the player was not prevented from shooting and then passes but a foul is still appropriate to call. It is not always easy to officiate while reading something on paper. We all know there are situations where the ball handler is clearly not trying to shoot. I do not see just giving them FTs just because they could have shot and clearly were not shooting the ball.

Peace