![]() |
|
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
I do see many newer officials who call it too tight, so the general comments you were given I can see. |
|
|||
Because that's not the rule!
Quote:
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.
__________________
Its not enough to know the rules and apply them correctly. You must know how to explain it to others! |
|
|||
Quote:
Rich1 (and Nevada, for that matter), if you saw A1 driving through the lane between B1 and B2 get fouled by B1 and B2 at exactly the same time (not in the act of shooting), would you call a multiple foul? Because literally that's what you're supposed to do. Try it and let me know what your evaluators and assignors think. Also, let me know how long it takes to explain to the B coach that A1 gets one free throw for each foul despite the fact that A1 was not in the act of shooting (Rule 10 Penalties Summary 6a(1)). |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
If that is what I clearly observed, then I would definitely follow the rule in administering the penalties. I'm absolutely certain that I would have the backing of my assignor for following the rules. I have also explained some strange plays to coaches over the 17 years that I've been doing this. On some of those occasions the coaches have not been pleased about it, but as they know that what I've told them really is the rule, they deal with it and move on. I don't see what the big deal is in calling something that is unusual or unexpected. That's called having the stones to make whatever call is needed instead of being afraid to do it right. |
|
|||
Quote:
Then after the shooter lands (even on only one foot) the defender messes up and bumps into the shooter, and you are going to call a shooting foul contrary to the rules because that's what the coaches and players EXPECT??? Holy crap. So do you also hit the whistle and call a foul anytime a player or coach yells "And 1" because that's what they expect? |
|
||||
Quote:
And I don't GAF what the coach expects to be called. The coaches who know the rules will expect this to be called by the rule. Coach: Hadn't he landed? You: Sure, but I still think it was a shooting foul.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
on these latter examples that I do see called as shooting fouls, not the one in the original post, I think you can plausibility say you saw the foul occur before landing. If you have super slo-mo replay then you'll see that their feet hit first but as you said you aren't watching the feet/landing rather the whole play. So technically yes, their feet may have hit first but these would often be called a shooting foul because you are seeing the contact following the release and not thinking about whether or nor the feet landed.
going back to that set shot. Player shoots without jumping. Ball is released and from around the head and player's arms go forward, defender hits the player's arms on the follow-through. Offensive player hasn't left floor. To me that is a shooting foul if it happens right after. A foul on the arms for the offensive player natural follow through after releasing the shot still impacts the shot. Listen, I care what the rule says. But I'm just saying, on these plays where there is a foul on the follow through/or right after landing(I mean super quick) then I'm looking at the whole picture and I'm seeing if it was part of the shot or not. If I see there was a bit of a delay or more of a screen out, then yes I'll call a non-shooting foul. I'm not going to think about whether or not the feet hit first because that is less important than watching everything else. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
last second shot | fullor30 | Basketball | 24 | Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:59pm |
Shot in less than 0.3 | mick | Basketball | 14 | Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:59pm |
Last Sec Shot | nukewhistle | Basketball | 18 | Sat Dec 29, 2007 09:55pm |
last second shot | stewcall | Basketball | 19 | Tue Jan 21, 2003 09:54pm |
Shot Clock Problem, Without the Shot Clock!! | rainmaker | Basketball | 6 | Wed Jun 05, 2002 10:09am |