Shooting Foul? (Video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So basically we are all now "changing" plays in order to make our respective points. So getting back to the original video that was posted, and not trying to change the play to fit our personal agendas...

Two shots on the play or not?

I say yes.

And you all say???

The original play is yesterday's news. Even I admitted that it was a shooting foul and I started the thread.

We've now moved on to the philosoply that every time a player jumps in the air with the ball they are judged to be shooting, no matter what. Even if during the entire game they driven to the hole and passed off every time. They've taken 0 shots and have 15 assists, but if they get fouled, they were shooting.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The original play is yesterday's news. Even I admitted that it was a shooting foul and I started the thread.

We've now moved on to the philosoply that every time a player jumps in the air with the ball they are judged to be shooting, no matter what. Even if during the entire game they driven to the hole and passed off every time. They've taken 0 shots and have 15 assists, but if they get fouled, they were shooting.

BNR, I don't think anyone here has stated anything remotely resembling this.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

BNR, I don't think anyone here has stated anything remotely resembling this.

"...So, if the motion up to the foul looks like any other shot, the player should be going to the line..."

That statement takes nothing into account other than raising the ball in an upward motion. That action looks the same whether passing or shooting.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"...So, if the motion up to the foul looks like any other shot, the player should be going to the line..."

That statement takes nothing into account other than raising the ball in an upward motion. That action looks the same whether passing or shooting.

Yep. If it looks like the start of a shot, it is the start of a shot. The act of shooting is defined by the motions which usually precede a shot, not just jumping, but specific arm/foot movements too. I can tell the difference between a player starting to go up for shot and a pass. They don't look anything alike. Are you not able to tell when a player is trying to shoot? Do you never award FTs unless the ball hits the rim since anything else might have been a pass?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...They don't look anything alike. Are you not able to tell when a player is trying to shoot? Do you never award FTs unless the ball hits the rim since anything else might have been a pass?

Quit with the nonsense. PGs going to the hole (not Reggie Miller taking a jump shot) take off the same way whether passing or shooting. Guess nobody in Oregon never drives and kicks out.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Quit with the nonsense. PGs going to the hole (not Reggie Miller taking a jump shot) take off the same way whether passing or shooting. Guess nobody in Oregon never drives and kicks out.

Maybe the jump looks the same, but more is required. There are arm motions associated with the start of a shot. A PG who goes up as if he's shooting and gets fouled is getting the benefit of the doubt from me and getting FTs.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Maybe the jump looks the same, but more is required. There are arm motions associated with the start of a shot. A PG who goes up as if he's shooting and gets fouled is getting the benefit of the doubt from me and getting FTs.

Must be a regional thing.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yep. If it looks like the start of a shot, it is the start of a shot...

Since you are always condescending to towards another posters about "the rules", please tell me where that is written in the rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Since you are always condescending to towards another posters about "the rules", please tell me where that is written in the rules.

You've been given the rules, and a very clear interpretation that goes with them that says exactly that. It is up to you to just accept that and call it as has been specified. I can't make you, but if you don't, that says a lot about you, not me.
If not, it has become abundantly clear that you really don't care what the rules are and you're going to do what you want regardless.

As for my attitude, I started with a simple statement that a claim YOU made was NOT supported by rules. Rather than support your claim by rule, you deflect and divert the discussion away from your claim by asking me to prove your claim wrong. That is not the way things work. You made the claim, it is you that has to support your claim. If you can't support it (and you have yet to provide anything resembling support for it), then your claim is not true. I showed you the rules that apply, and all you did amounted to mostly a bunch of chest thumping, calling it judgement even though judgement is supposed to be based on the rules. If you want to think you're bigger than the game and can just make up your own stuff, of course I'm going to be condescending.

You still continue to avoid providing any support for you claim hiding behind "judgement" even when THE authoritative source says your judgement is wrong and try to turn it back on me to disprove your claim. That sort of deflection is a tactic of someone who simply can't support their own claims and try to win not by merely attacking the opponent rather than addressing the topic.

You may be a successful official and can get away with bullshitting your way around the rules most of the time but at least be honest that you're doing so to those that actually know the rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You still continue to avoid providing any support for you claim hiding behind "judgement" even when THE authoritative source says your judgement is wrong and try to turn it back on me to disprove your claim. That sort of deflection is a tactic of someone who simply can't support their own claims and try to win not by merely attacking the opponent rather than addressing the topic.

You may be a successful official and can get away with bullshitting your way around the rules most of the time but at least be honest that you're doing so to those that actually know the rules.

Didn't we have the NF Rules Editor give a ruling based and ignore the previous interpretation? Sorry, I do not put much stock in people that cannot even follow their own interpretations consistently and use standards from other levels.

And in the real world players do no-look passes and all kinds of jump passes so they fool their opponents. Sorry but they do a lot of things that look the same.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That action looks the same whether passing or shooting.

If you can't tell what it is you have a problem. You have to decide......before the foul. Because what happens afterward doesn't matter, according to the NFHS.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you can't tell what it is you have a problem. You have to decide......before the foul. Because what happens afterward doesn't matter, according to the NFHS.

It says nowhere in the rule when I have to decide. It talks about the judgment of the official. Officials who are constantly putting people on the line for 2 shots when they are passing the ball are guilty of not having a patient whistle.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It says nowhere in the rule when I have to decide. It talks about the judgment of the official. Officials who are constantly putting people on the line for 2 shots when they are passing the ball are guilty of not having a patient whistle.

And that is the key right there.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It says nowhere in the rule when I have to decide. It talks about the judgment of the official. Officials who are constantly putting people on the line for 2 shots when they are passing the ball are guilty of not having a patient whistle.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And that is the key right there.

Peace

I'm not in a race to put a whistle on a play as soon as contact occurs. Seems like some officials are in a rush to judge a play while it's still developing.

Originally Posted by 2000-01 NFHS ruling

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)

And this 13 year old interp says nothng about raising the ball. It does talk about what an official "deems" is a shot. I prefer to process all the information in making that determination.