shot end?

[mutantducky]

btw, I want to add something on the jump shot, take it or leave it.

I play and I was talking to other players about these situations. Everyone assumed it was a shooting foul on the layups when the foul occurs right after the landing. That's just what players think and I'm going to stick with that unless there is a delay. it has to be really quick so unless it happens basically right after I'll go with the non-shooting foul.

For the jump shot. Everyone thought the landing could impact the shot. You could be thinking how the defender is in your landing zone. The plays when there is a landing then a foul, should be called shooting fouls because they are impacting the shot. Again, if there is a land then delay say an illegal screen out then that is non-shooting. But again, I don't care what the rules say if a player is hit right after the landing that is a shooting foul and it is foolish not to call it a shooting foul because it is impacting the shot.
I'm glad everyone here agrees with me. Oh you too, why thank you. Thank you very much.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

btw, I want to add something on the jump shot, take it or leave it.

I play and I was talking to other players about these situations. Everyone assumed it was a shooting foul on the layups when the foul occurs right after the landing. That's just what players think and I'm going to stick with that unless there is a delay. it has to be really quick so unless it happens basically right after I'll go with the non-shooting foul.

For the jump shot. Everyone thought the landing could impact the shot. You could be thinking how the defender is in your landing zone. The plays when there is a landing then a foul, should be called shooting fouls because they are impacting the shot. Again, if there is a land then delay say an illegal screen out then that is non-shooting. But again, I don't care what the rules say if a player is hit right after the landing that is a shooting foul and it is foolish not to call it a shooting foul because it is impacting the shot.
I'm glad everyone here agrees with me. Oh you too, why thank you. Thank you very much.

Wow. Just wow. Screw the rules, let's let every ref decide what he thinks the player think. Air balls are travels if you catch your shot now. Gonna have to be "set" to take a charge. . . . Wow. Just wow.

Does this board have an "ignore" feature?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

But again, I don't care what the rules say

And that right there is your problem.

You would rather listen to what a bunch of your playing buddies down at the rec center think instead of read the rule and case books and know what you are actually supposed to call.

That is ridiculous.

[just another ref]

One other thing: Contact which would be a foul on an airborne shooter, if it occurs after the landing, often is not a foul at all.

[mutantducky]

I've never said anything about being set to take a charge.

yes, I'm going to ignore the rule that says it is not not a shooting foul just because the offensive player's feet touched before the foul. That's often a shooting foul. As it is called. As it will continue to be. Rules are rules but a strict interpretation calls for absurd results or games being called with too many touch fouls, etc. Strict interpretation doesn't work and I doubt supervisors want to go by it either. Ref by the rules AND the skill level of the game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

... too many touch fouls.

I bet that you just love the new Freedom of Movement rules.

[mutantducky]

I had two early games with evaluators, old-timers, not a young whipper-snapper like yourself. And another with a good varsity ref. In each I was told to lighten up on the fouls. yes, they were fouls by the rule but better to ref according to the competition and make sure games stay under control. If you ref too strictly the games will lack any flow or sense that the competition is between the players. I just don't believe in a literal interpretation of the rulebook in all situations.

if there is contact after the jump shot, maybe a light touch, or an incidental bump, sure that may not be a foul. But sometimes there will be and if I see it impacting the landing/follow through then that likely will be a shooting foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

btw, I want to add something on the jump shot, take it or leave it.

I play and I was talking to other players about these situations. Everyone assumed it was a shooting foul on the layups when the foul occurs right after the landing. That's just what players think and I'm going to stick with that unless there is a delay. it has to be really quick so unless it happens basically right after I'll go with the non-shooting foul.

For the jump shot. Everyone thought the landing could impact the shot. You could be thinking how the defender is in your landing zone. The plays when there is a landing then a foul, should be called shooting fouls because they are impacting the shot. Again, if there is a land then delay say an illegal screen out then that is non-shooting. But again, I don't care what the rules say if a player is hit right after the landing that is a shooting foul and it is foolish not to call it a shooting foul because it is impacting the shot.
I'm glad everyone here agrees with me. Oh you too, why thank you. Thank you very much.

Everyone, this person will remain a JV official for life.

[mutantducky]

but I haven't

again. I don't know any refs who follow the rulebook literally. Not when the game is flowing.

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

but I haven't

again. I don't know any refs who follow the rulebook literally. Not when the game is flowing.

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.

How can you call that a shooting foul when it clearly isn't??? There is no ambiguity here. In fact, what you just described is LEGAL defense. If you have any foul to be called, it would be on the shooter.

Calling what others, particularly coaches and players, is 100% wrong. Call the rules. Doing it right is only made difficult by those who deliberately do it wrong.

[Zoochy]

You have been wrong from the beginning and continue to be wrong in you interpretation. What other rules are you bending to make the coaches happy?

[Camron Rust]

Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that.

Distracting the shooter is not a foul (well, unless maybe its unsporting conduct or something).

I do see many newer officials who call it too tight, so the general comments you were given I can see.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

but I haven't

again. I don't know any refs who follow the rulebook literally. Not when the game is flowing.

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.

First, you need to hang out with a better group of refs. Every ref that has earned my respect and almost all refs I work with in my area follows the rule book LITERALLY (the exceptions being those who either lack experience or don't have the desire to get better). Yes, there are places within the rules that we are supposed to use our professional judgement, such as when contact is a foul. But once we make that call the rules along with official interpretations of them (casebook, local interpreters, etc.) dictate what we do next, not the preferences of the individual referee.

Second, I can "not call it a shooting foul" because the rules say its not a shoiting foul. If they change the rule to include your scenario th en I will start calling it the way you suggest but until then I have to all it by the book as it is written today.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich1

First, you need to hang out with a better group of refs. Every ref that has earned my respect and almost all refs I work with in my area follows the rule book LITERALLY (the exceptions being those who either lack experience or don't have the desire to get better). Yes, there are places within the rules that we are supposed to use our professional judgement, such as when contact is a foul. But once we make that call the rules along with official interpretations of them (casebook, local interpreters, etc.) dictate what we do next, not the preferences of the individual referee.

I'm going to call shenanigans here.

No official worth his salt is taking the book literally on every rule.