Shooting Foul? (Video)
 

From Saturday's Pitt/UF game.

12:11 of the first half UF is given a 2-shot foul on a drive to the basket.

That's all I'll leave for the description, don't want to influence anyone's opinion.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/nc-EoBcaGLU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Possession, Point To The Designated Spot, Or Bonus ...
 

In my high school game, as the calling official, I'm immediately yelling, "That's a pass". I know that it's not by the book, or any book, but we're not robots. At least, not yet.

I think 2 shots was correct it seems to me the foul on the arm made the ball come out as if it were a pass he seemed to be trying to shoot watch his follow through... If it's close why not reward the non fouling team is my thought

Only His Hairdresser Knows For Sure ...
 

I see your point, but in a real game, in real time, with only one quick look, I'm making a quick judgment call, and only the player fouled will know if I'm right, or wrong.

Pass off. If you want the shots, continue to shoot. I'm not going to guess which one you intended.

Now in a situation like the one at the end of Wichita State-Kentucky where the ball lands at your feet and there is nowhere to go but up.....that's a different story.

How do you continue to shoot when you get hacked on the arm and the ball comes out straight instead of up? Look at the play it's pretty obvious he was shooting got hit ball came out he tried following through but ball was gone official notices it and made correct call...

Not the rule. It is what he was doing when he was fouled, not what he decided to do after. It is your job to decide what he was doing when he was fouled.

Citation?

I watch the play start, develop, and finish before I make a ruling on what actually happened. The finish of this play is the player passing the ball to his friend when he realizes he cannot finish over the defender.

I completely agree with you...that being said how do you look at that video and not seem him shooting get hacked and ball comes out cuz he lost it??

2 shots...obvious he was fouled in the act of shooting as his body language continued that action after the foul. The ball landing in another persons hands is irrelevant.

I must be crazy I watched it in slow mo 10 times as Soon as he gets hit the ball squirts out...he does not pass it in my opinion

I see the foul knocking the ball out, and a teammate just happens to be in position to catch the ball. That's not a pass, IMO. The L is in a great spot to see the whole thing.

Just because the ball is knocked out of a players hands and goes directly to a teammate, does not mean it's a pass. The Lead, who has the play coming directly at him, sees the offensive player gather the ball, start his upward motion, and follow thru to shoot - only to have the ball deflected to a teammate.

He correctly ruled two shots. That's what it was….a shot.

I don't have a foul. I have the defender knocking the ball out of A1's hands.

That's two shots. Started to shoot, got hacked and the ball got deflected

You're the one claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled. It would be up to you to supply the citation that says they only get shots if they are able to continue to shoot after being fouled while trying to shoot. But that is hard to do when the ball is knocked away. Are you saying that if the defense is able to knock the ball away the offense isn't shooting?

I am not claiming that. I am not claiming that a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled. I am claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled if he wants fouls shots.

You are saying the burden is on me to supply the citiation....which is hilarious considering you replied to my initial post saying "Not the rule." I then asked you to supply the rule and you countered by repeating my question back to me. Great defense. I am guessing you are hesitant to supply such a rule or citation because none exists. I would love to be proven wrong though, simply reply with the case/rule book citation and I will apologize.

10-6 penalty tells us two shots if a player is fouled in the act of shooting.

It says nothing about what happens after the foul.

Where is the argument here?

You're really funny. You're claiming exactly that. You're saying he can't get FTs if he is shooting but gives up after getting fouled and can't get the shot off due to the foul. The only thing the rules care about is what he was doing at the instant he was fouled, not what comes after.

Clever argument. You're the one claiming a player must continue to shoot after being fouled in order to still be considered to be shooting. As the one making that claim, it would be upon you to provide the citation to back up that claim.


In any case, here are the rules (and you'll find nothing in them that supports your claim):

No, I'm saying if he gets fouled and decides to pass the ball instead of attempt a shot, then I'm not giving him FT's. I consider the play as a whole, I don't try to guess what he was doing. I call what he actually did.

I am claiming that. Unlike you however, I am not claiming any rules basis. Why do I need to provide a rules reference if I am not appealing to one? You are the one who countered that my method of determining shooting versus passing does not follow the rule. Thus, the burden to provide a rule reference lies with you and you alone :)

Thanks for that rule reference. As I thought, it is up to my (sometimes poor) judgement to determine whether a player is shooting or passing. My method for doing so involves seeing the play start, develop, and finish and making a judgement based on what the player actually does. I am sorry if my method perterbs you, but I cannot read a players mind as to what he wants to do. What he does is what I call.

When I first saw the play I was perplexed as to why he was given 2 shots. Now that I have a chance to see it replayed I agree he was going up and the ball popped out to Young.

However, when I saw it on TV I thought there was no foul to begin with, and after seeing the replay, I still think there was no foul.

I could go with a no foul if I had a look at primary defenders actions on the ball handlers left arm. The L has a good look at that play so I'm going to believe there was contact.

Correct. You can not tell from camera angle if #13 made contact or not. I defer to the lead official, the one who had the best look.

If the player is fouled while in the act of shooting, shoot the throws.

The L obviously felt he was -- no hesitation. I'm happy to defer to that judgment -- he's the one who saw the entire thing right in front of him.

The problem with this play is that the offensive player had no way of continuing that shooting motion once the ball was knocked out by the foul.

So, you're making a ruling with no rules basis. Why? The definition of what the act of shooting is is pretty clear. Why not follow it? I prefer to follow what the rules say. Not make up my own and ask people to prove something that is made up is false.

I gave you the rule which defines act of shooting. You're choosing to ignore it. What rule allows you to do so?

Freeze frame at the time of the foul. What is the player doing at that moment? That is how the rules define the situation and how you should be ruling it. Anything else is your own made up interpretation.

Then you are misapplying the whole concept of SDF. It has nothing to do with determining if the player was shooting or not. It is ONLY about deciding if a foul occurred or now.

You personal interpretation is rewarding defender for fouling. You're making the shooter guess whether you're going to blow the whistle or not. With your interpretation, they have to assume you are going to blow the whistle and still try to complete the shot. Then, if you don't, they're left with no option. The pass they could have made is no longer available and they lose the ball. That is an unfair burden to put on the shooter who was fouled.

I prefer to follow the rules too, but your claim is nonsensical. I didn't make up a rule, nor am I controverting or ignoring any rule. The rule says it is up to the "official’s judgment" to determine shooting versus passing. My method of determining shooting vs. passing is different than yours, that is all. I'm sorry if you disagree with my method.

There is no rule that says "if the player is intending to shoot (regardless of shooting motion or not) when he is fouled but passes the ball after the foul you must give FT's". As I have said several times, my method for making that shooting vs. passing judgement involves seeing the play start, develop, and finish and making a call based on what the player does.

I can't ignore a rule that doesn't exist :)

If they are shooting, they will try to shoot. If they are passing, they will try to pass. We cannot use the starting of the shooting motion to determine whether a player is actually shooting or not. Why not? Because (even absent a foul) players will go up as if to shoot and then pass the ball to a teammate in a better position. We can only be patient with our whistle and make a decision based on the outcome.

Losing the ball doesn't matter cuz the situation is assuming we call a foul.

In this case, losing the ball matters a lot. He didn't shoot because he no longer had the ball due to the foul that occurred while he was trying to shoot the ball.

The rules are indeed clear. The rules define a try as starting when they start the shooting motion (with no qualification that they complete it). The rules define it as a shooting foul if the player was trying to to shoot when fouled. The rules also say that what follows doesn't matter....they don't have to release the shot. To then determine whether it is a shot or not based on what follows the foul is simply not correct by rule. You've screwed the shooter out of deserved FTs by doing so.

You're trying to call it judgement but it really isn't. You've already admitted that you decision isn't based on how the rules define a try (which is clearly defined in the definitions) but something else that is not in the rules. Nothing in the rules support outcome based decisions. They say exactly the opposite....it is about what the player is trying to do when they get foul. Judgement is supposed to be based on rules fundamentals, not on criteria that have no rules basis.

This is so blatantly wrong I can no longer take any other thing you might say on here seriously. ALL that matters is what he was doing at the moment of the foul. Whatever happens afterward is completely irrelevant - and the rule says pretty much exactly that.

Wow.

So if you are officiating, all I need do as a defender is wrap up the shooters arms so that he can't continue to shoot...then he won't get any free throws. Nice.

Also, your claim that the offensive player "decided" to pass the ball is wrong. The ball was knocked out by the defender.

I recall a pretty long debate not to long ago where quite a few took just that position. If a player starts to shoot, gets fouled, and then passes the ball, many here are going with a pass and thus no free throws (unless in the bonus).

In the OP, if the player hadn't had the ball knocked away from him, a few more would advocate for no shots.

Back to my point. :D

But yes, it was knocked out, he did not pass it as I orignially thought when I saw it on TV.

This is slightly different, but we had a similar discussion not too long ago. The difference was that in the other play, after the contact, the shooter couldn't complete the shot, so he obviously changed his effort and passed to a teammate. Several said they wouldn't give him free throws if he passed after the foul.

That was wrong then. This is wrong now.

jmo

Depends where you work, and whom you work for.

I remember that. I believe that most, then, were saying that they couldn't award shots if the player passed the ball because they could not read the player's mind and didn't know if he was initially passing or shooting. Arem, however, said "if he gets fouled and decides to pass the ball instead of attempt a shot" - CLEARLY stating that this decision was AFTER the foul. The former is wrong (imho). The latter ... so incredibly wrong it can't be justified.

I really don't see a practical difference between the two.

Like other things we could name, you can call it any way you want and should do what the bosses want. But if you knowingly take away the free throws because contact causes the shooter to change his try to a pass, you have no rules support in doing so.

If you can't tell what he was doing prior to the contact, well, you'll just have to make that decision anyway, one way or the other. Different officials seem to lean in different directions on this.

But in the case I'm remembering, it was a given that it was a shot attempt, but the contact forced the change to a pass. Some said they still wouldn't award free throws. BNR may be one of these and could elaborate.

Correct, 4-41-2 says a player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for goal". The way I use my officials judgement is through the process that I have explained several times before: I wait until I see the whole play start, develop, and finish and then make my decision on the whole play, not just one aspect. If a player is trying to shoot, they will continue to shoot. If the player passes, he is not trying to shoot.

Correct again. They do not have to release the shot.....but if they try to pass then the try is over; they are no longer shooting and thus are no longer entitled to FT's.

I don't need to call it judgement. The rules themselves call it judgement. You are the one contradicting the rules here -- you are saying this is not s judgement when the rules say it is.

False. My view correlates with what the rulebook says, and I feel I have explained it well. I am not throwing out how the rules define a try, or how they define the start or end of a try.

The rules clearly say it is up to the officials judgement. In my judgement, I use outcome-based decisions. Why would I do otherwise? I cannot read a players mind, I can only call what I see.

Ahhhh yes. Was so astounded by the stupidity of previous comments that I missed your point.

Not sure it was a foul or not. The L sure had a good look though.

It's not only supervisors, it's also coaches. You start giving guys 2 shots on plays where players passed the ball and you'll be getting calls on the drive home after the coach calls the supervisor.

Coaches write the rules. Coaches in every entity I worked expect players that pass the ball after contact not to be awarded a shooting foul.

I agree he had a better look than me. But when I initially saw the play I'm thinking 1) that's not a foul 2) that's not a shooting foul. That combination had me verklempt :)

I'm actually glad the replay showed the official on the spot made the right decision about it being a shooting foul.

My opinion about the contact is just Armchair Officiating.

When the foul went against their team, I'm sure that's true.

Again, this expectation flies in the face of the rule, as written. If coaches don't like this rule, they should see that it's changed.

When it's goes against their team, 100% of the time the coach yells at their player for not shooting. I have never had an exception to this scenario.

"But I was shooting, coach! Until that goon dislocated my elbow."

Has never happened. Can only go by my experiences and the expectations where I work.

I'm sure a person with a dislocated elbow is just as incapable of passing the ball as he is of shooting the ball. He would most likely drop the ball, and his team awarded 2 shots for the flagrant/IF anyway :p

I am disappointed to hear this type of unprofessional comment coming from an administrator. I have been very reasonable and done my best to clarify my point of view, and I would hope you would at least respect my effort.

I have yet to hear of a rule reference that specifically says "if the player is intending to shoot (regardless of shooting motion or not) when he is fouled but passes the ball after the foul you must give FT's". Could you provide one?

Never said that. If he is trying to complete a try and is fouled, he will shoot FT's. If, instead of trying to complete a try the player decides to pass the ball, he will not be shooting FT's.

At this point we are no longer discussing the play in the OP, but rather the theory behind this type of play.

That is exactly the play I am talking about, there is no difference.

You recall correctly. That debate was a result of a play that I was involved in. I posted the story on The Forum and this same debate occurred. Here is the link to that discussion. Go ahead and read through the thread. I'm not sure where they stand now, but BNR, JRut, johnny d, APG, and JetMet were the posters who agreed with my point of view. In fact, their arguments in that thread were what formed the view I currently hold, and have been defending in this thread. Those guys are good refs, and when we discussed this last year I trusted what they said.

Given that the two prominent dissenting posters (JAR, Cam Rust) in the thread last year are the same ones debating me in this thread, I will end my comments here. I believe we know where each other stand :)

I'm with the majority on the other thread. If the player passes, we're not shooting.

This is not that thread. Here, we're shooting.

So just for kicks and giggles I went back and read through (most of) that old thread...that's a completely different situation than the play posted here, and you know it, Arem. The play posted in this video is not a player who decides to pass...it is a player who gets fouled and has the ball knocked out of his hands, thus he is not able to complete the shot.

Arem...Are you still saying you would not give free throws in the play posted in the video in this thread?

i had 2 shots on first view. Don't see what's so tough about this. didn't look like a pass at all IMO.

EDIT: this play and the one from a previous discussion are TWO completely different things. One was an intended pass and one was an intended shot that looked like a pass because the foul dislodged the ball. Completely different plays.

Not really. It is just as wrong everywhere. It is happens to be a bad interpretation that happens to be accepted in some places.

That, right there, says it all. You just made my point. They were shooting but the shot has ended. Fouled while they were shooting....FTs coming. End of discussion.

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.

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.

Probably not real common. But, hey, discussing plays like that is kinda what we do here.

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.

Agreed, my initials thoughts about the play I asked for were wrong, A1 was in fact shooting when he was fouled.

But in the other thread my view still stands as I posted in response to jar in this thread.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

What inconsistency? It's called the same way all the time in every game I've officiated or seen.

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?

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.

Well said.

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.

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.

Not the play we're talking about.

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.

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

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

The thing is, the interp leaves it as a given that the player was shooting. We don't get to officiate with givens, and that's really where the previous disagreement came into play.

If there's doubt about whether the player is shooting, sometimes we have to see the action after the foul to make that determination. If there's no doubt, then by rule it doesn't matter. This is where the disagreement comes into play, and it's why I don't think it's going to affect more than a few plays for each of us during our careers.

Exactly. Seeing the whole play helps me determine whether or not it is shooting foul. You have some officials who assume everyone who jumped in the air with the ball is shooting.

There are many set plays now where the PG goes to the paint, launches himself in the air, then kicks it out to a 3-point shooter, or a cutter coming down the middle of the paint. When I officiate I pay attention to what the primary ball-handlers do during the course of the game.

Supervisors I work for get upset when we put a whistle on a play where a guard gets bumped a little in the paint and then passes to a big man who is now having his dunk or lay-up waved off. And they definitely don't want us to turn around and then say the guy who just passed the ball was really shooting.

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???

Yes, this was not a pass.

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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?

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. :rolleyes:

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

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.

Might be.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?