Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Must be a regional thing.

Might be.

I'm not saying it's automatic, but he's going to have to prove otherwise, IMO.

[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 JRutledge

Didn't we have the NF Rules Editor give a ruling based and ignore the previous interpretation?

What ruling would that be and what was the previous interpretation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

We have seen some interpretations that have been completely inconsistent with what is in the rules but that isn't the case here...they match up very well. You can't just throw out any interpretation you don't like just because they've made a few bad ones in the past.

You're paid to know the difference between a no-look pass and a shot that is abandoned after being fouled. To me, they don't look alike. You can't tell the difference? Maybe that is an area for you to work on.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

This doesn't even address the argument at hand. Granted players have moves that it is difficult to tell at the start what will happen, but it is still up to us to decide before the foul.

If the player pushes the ball toward the basket after the contact, do you always give him the two shots?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This doesn't even address the argument at hand. Granted players have moves that it is difficult to tell at the start what will happen, but it is still up to us to decide before the foul.

If the player pushes the ball toward the basket after the contact, do you always give him the two shots?

If it is in doubt, I give them shots. Like when the ball is completely knocked out of their hand or they are prevented by the contact to even control the ball anymore. If it is clearly an attempt to pass after the fact, I am inclined to not give shots or FTs.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If it is in doubt, I give them shots. Like when the ball is completely knocked out of their hand or they are prevented by the contact to even control the ball anymore. If it is clearly an attempt to pass after the fact, I am inclined to not give shots or FTs.

Peace

So, given the clear rules and interpretation that matches, as mentioned above, you will consciously and deliberately call it in opposition to the official interpretation?