Shooting Foul? (Video)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No one has ever said that. It is one element in judging the play. Sometimes it outweighs other elements, sometimes it doesn't.

Here are a few...

Originally Posted by AremRed

I am claiming a player has to continue to shoot after being fouled if he wants fouls shots.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So if have a player elevate, get fouled, then following my whistle pass the ball to a teammage under the basket I'm gonna judge that he was intending to pass the ball.

Originally Posted by Rich

If the player passes, we're not shooting.

And here is what the NFHS thinks about the play:

Originally Posted by bob_jenkens

2000-2001 BASKETBALL INTERPRETATIONS
SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 3: Al is in the act of shooting and is fouled by Bi. The contact by Bl throws Al off balance and in an effort to make a play Al passes off to teammate A2 instead of proceeding through with an off- balance shot. The official rules that the pass-off by Al is not a factor as it was not the original intent and only the result of the contact by Bi. RULING: Al is awarded two free throws for the foul conunitted by Bi. COMMENT: Provided the official deems that Al 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)

I'll call it based on what the NFHS has said.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Some how the quotes are mixed up. if there is a motion which looks like a shooting motion, and then a foul occurs which prevents the player from shooting the ball or makes him dump it off to another player----we know when that happens---that is a shot. the fact that he is able to get the ball to another player- pass-in spite of the foul doesnt change that. shooting foul.

my original question was when we had a foul such as in the video, which wasnt really a foul at all and thus couldnt make the offensive player do anything she didnt want to do--and she continues on and travels--i cant give her two shots for being in act of shooting. when the phantom contact occurred she may have been moving the ball upward---could have been shot or pass at that moment in time. she continues on of her own volition and travels. i wasnt sure what she was doing when i blew the whistle. when she continues and takes two steps does she prove she isnt shooting?

I actually quoted and bolded your earlier post about a whistle followed by legal foot movements and a pass. In a play such as this where there was either phantom contact or very minimal contact there is no way I'm going to judge that contact prevented a shot from being released. It will be a non-shooting foul.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I actually quoted and bolded your earlier post about a whistle followed by legal foot movements and a pass. In a play such as this where there was either phantom contact or very minimal contact there is no way I'm going to judge that contact prevented a shot from being released. It will be a non-shooting foul.

in this case what i am also saying is that when this offensive player travels after contact which had no effect on her ability to do anything im not sending her to the line for shooting foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The most important thing you quoted is right there in the 15 year old interp Bob posted: "Provided the official deems that Al was in the act of shooting when fouled ".

Despite this very clear case from the NFHS that awards a player shots after passing, you, and others, have previously said, unequivocally, that pass indicates that it can't be a shot. What justification do you have for making that conclusion?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't condescend. I state facts and opinions (and I know the difference) and, unlike some, back up my opinions with facts and citations. And I call out people that make stuff up. If you disagree with my points, back your opinion up with rules, cases, interpretations, or anything other than just your opinion instead of puffing your chest and trying to bully me.



Despite this very clear case from the NFHS that awards a player shots after passing, you, and others, have previously said, unequivocally, that pass indicates that it can't be a shot. What justification do you have for making that conclusion?

I've stated my position many times, with rules references, go back read.

[Adam]

We're all adults here, but I locked it anyway.