shot end?

[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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm going to call shenanigans here.

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

Amen.

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)).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Amen.

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)).

That is NOT the case being discussed. Apples and naked mole rats.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Amen.

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)).

I have no issue answering this.
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.