Shooting Foul? (Video)

[xyrph]

I appreciate your responses. I agree that this is not a traditional shot attempt.

But the interesting thing is it is not even that difficult to become proficient "shooting" this way.

So since you do not consider this activity shooting, do you award the points from such a basket to the team, or the shooter?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by xyrph

I appreciate your responses. I agree that this is not a traditional shot attempt.

But the interesting thing is it is not even that difficult to become proficient "shooting" this way.

So since you do not consider this activity shooting, do you award the points from such a basket to the team, or the shooter?

While the previous posters are entirely correct in their conclusion, they didn't provide the why. It is in the definitions. Even IF you were to consider this action as an attempt to score (it isn't), the try ends the moment the ball touches the floor. Anything after that is just a ball that goes in....and it who it is attributed to is actually beyond what the rules cover. As for why it isn't a try to start with, a try is defined as throwing the ball into the basket, not bouncing it in.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by xyrph

I appreciate your responses. I agree that this is not a traditional shot attempt.

But the interesting thing is it is not even that difficult to become proficient "shooting" this way.

So since you do not consider this activity shooting, do you award the points from such a basket to the team, or the shooter?

See 5.1.1 in case book. covers exact situation. Points awarded to player who last had ball in that play. He or she is not a "shooter" in your example.

P.S. bouncing ball into the basket is hard....in "horse" when you have time, no defense etc. If you or anyone else can be proficient at it in a game then you have a future with the globetrotters

[BigCat]

Here is another issue the video has raised with me:


When we blow the whistle sometimes we look to see what the player does with the ball after the whistle to determine if he or she was in act of shooting. We know that 4-41-2 says the ball doesnt have to be released to be a shot because the foul could prevent the release. In this video i think most of us agree that 15 white didnt do much, if anything, to be a foul or do anything to "prevent" offense from making whatever play she wanted.

lets say in this video the offensive player, after the whistle and within proper steps, wings the ball to the corner to another player for open 3. In that situation the foul was not in the act of shooting-imo. ball out of bounds or bonus FT. I hope we all agree on that...?

My question/issue with this play---(some have said she traveled so cant count the basket but can give her two shots because she was in the act of shooting) If you assume the whistle was blown and then she traveled of her own volition--not bumped or caused to do it, does that not prove that she really wasnt in the act of shooting at the time she was fouled? or by rule not in the act? saying another way, if the person fouls you but does not affect your foot movements or ability to shoot in any way...do you have to release the ball without travelling to be considered in act of shooting? If i pick up the ball, start to raise it to the goal, you foul me but not prevent me from releasing it, then i take 3 more steps before actually releasing it are you going to give me 2 shots?

let me know what you think. If you cause me to travel/prevent me from releasing it that is one thing. But if i dont release the ball within proper foot steps etc then i cant give myself 2 shots...thx

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

lets say in this video the offensive player, after the whistle and within proper steps, wings the ball to the corner to another player for open 3. In that situation the foul was not in the act of shooting-imo. ball out of bounds or bonus FT. I hope we all agree on that...?

Some will agree but I disagree. I judge shooting based on what the player is doing when they get fouled. That is what the rules require. If they abandon the shot as a result of the contact, that doesn't change the fact that they were trying to score at the time of the foul or that they deserve FTs. The player can't count on you blowing the whistle and must assume you will not. If they can't get the shot off cleanly, they might then choose another option.

We're paid to make these decisions. Defaulting to what they do afterwards is lazy officiating in my mind. It is easier but that doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by BigCat

My question/issue with this play---(some have said she traveled so cant count the basket but can give her two shots because she was in the act of shooting) If you assume the whistle was blown and then she traveled of her own volition--not bumped or caused to do it, does that not prove that she really wasnt in the act of shooting at the time she was fouled? or by rule not in the act?

It does not mean that all. Successfully making the play isn't a requirement. It is only about what they are trying to do when they get fouled.

Taken a bit farther, you can't with 100% certainly say that, in the presence of a foul, the travel wan't caused by the foul.

Originally Posted by BigCat

saying another way, if the person fouls you but does not affect your foot movements or ability to shoot in any way...do you have to release the ball without travelling to be considered in act of shooting? If i pick up the ball, start to raise it to the goal, you foul me but not prevent me from releasing it, then i take 3 more steps before actually releasing it are you going to give me 2 shots?

Raising the ball isn't necessarily a shot. If I think the player is trying to shoot when they get fouled, they're going to the line. What happens next only affects whether the shot can be counted or not.

Originally Posted by BigCat

let me know what you think. If you cause me to travel/prevent me from releasing it that is one thing. But if i dont release the ball within proper foot steps etc then i cant give myself 2 shots...thx

[Nevadaref]

I agree with all of Camron's responses immediately above.

There is even a case book play stating that a player who was in the act of shooting at the time of the foul, then decides to pass instead after the foul. The ruling is to award FTs.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I agree with all of Camron's responses immediately above.

There is even a case book play stating that a player who was in the act of shooting at the time of the foul, then decides to pass instead after the foul. The ruling is to award FTs.

That play and the rule says the defensive player/the foul "prevented" the release of the ball. In this video and what im talking about, the foul--or phantom call in this case..did not prevent anything...

In your example above you mention that the player is already "in the act of shooting." Im talking about determining whether the player ever was in the act. i do agree if in act and then fould causes a pass we still give two shots. thx

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

...
lets say in this video the offensive player, after the whistle and within proper steps, wings the ball to the corner to another player for open 3. In that situation the foul was not in the act of shooting-imo. ball out of bounds or bonus FT. I hope we all agree on that...?
...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Some will agree but I disagree. I judge shooting based on what the player is doing when they get fouled. That is what the rules require. If they abandon the shot as a result of the contact, that doesn't change the fact that they were trying to score at the time of the foul or that they deserved FTs. The player can't count on you blowing the whistle and must assume you will not. If they can't get the shot off cleanly, they might then choose another option.

...

The whistle has already been blown. So it's either 1 of 2 things:

1) the whistle was premature, and there was no foul to begin with since the player performed normal offensive movements after contact

2) the player had no intention to shooting

Has nothing to do with being lazy.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The whistle has already been blown. So it's either 1 of 2 things:

1) the whistle was premature, and there was no foul to begin with since the player performed normal offensive movements after contact

2) the player had no intention to shooting

Has nothing to do with being lazy.

You can't know that regardless of what happens.

It is a lazy way out. It is far easier to say "but he passed it" instead of making the tougher decision based on what the player was, by rule, attempting to do at the time of contact and justifying that to the defending team.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can't know that regardless of what happens.

It is a lazy way out. It is far easier to say "but he passed it" instead of making the tougher decision based on what the player was, by rule, attempting to do at the time of contact and justifying that to the defending team.

Officiating entails gathering and processing ALL the information at your disposal when making a judgment on a play. It is lazy to turn off your brain the moment contact occurs without considering all the factors. Or maybe it is arrogance to lead one to place their judgment above what actually happened on the play.

My way of doing it has been successful and what is expected everywhere I have worked so far. Maybe I just work for lazy supervisors or maybe you are incompletely processing information when you judge these plays.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can't know that regardless of what happens.

It is a lazy way out. It is far easier to say "but he passed it" instead of making the tougher decision based on what the player was, by rule, attempting to do at the time of contact and justifying that to the defending team.

As you said, you can't know that. So this conversation is what you judge as opposed to what others judge. But those who don't do it your way are lazy.

[BigCat]

I think Camron, Nevada and I agree that after the end of the dribble/catch/gather there has to be some movement indicating a throwing motion. I also think we agree that if I get fouled and the force of the foul or anything about it---say it surprises me---prevents me from releasing the ball on the shot, or causes me to "abandon it" as Cameron says...i still am in the act of shooting.

But, im talking about the situation where it isnt obvious that the player was shooting and it isnt obvious that the foul caused the player to readjust/abandon and pass. In fact, im talking about the situation where it is obvious, as here, that whatever happened with 15, had no effect on the offensive player.

lets put an offensive player in this video on the opposite block. Lets assume the whistle blew after the catch/gather of the ball and as the player started to raise the ball. some type of small movement---pass or shot?? Screen now goes to complete black. Was she going to shoot it or dump to the player on the block? Sometimes you have to look further to determine if they were in the act or not.
I dont see that as lazy but as gathering more information. I will look at the shooter to try to determine if it was a readjustment.

There are times we blow the whistle on contact and have to wait to see what happens next to determine if shot or pass. I taught my kids to throw ball at rim if they heard whistle...even if they were going to pass it...

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can't know that regardless of what happens.

It is a lazy way out. It is far easier to say "but he passed it" instead of making the tougher decision based on what the player was, by rule, attempting to do at the time of contact and justifying that to the defending team.

It sounds good to say every time you blow the whistle you know at that moment if it was a shot or pass. It just isnt true. So many times the player could shhoot or dump. you have to look at the players reaction to contact to see if it made them dump instead of shoot. if i follow them the entire way and they dump without any indication of abandoning a shot i cant put them on the line. the dump is telling me what they were intending to do. --if i see any indication of an abandonment of a shot i will give them benefit of doubt and award shots.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by xyrph

I appreciate your responses. I agree that this is not a traditional shot attempt.

But the interesting thing is it is not even that difficult to become proficient "shooting" this way.

So since you do not consider this activity shooting, do you award the points from such a basket to the team, or the shooter?

It's not that we do not consider this activity shooting or that's it not a traditional shot attempt, it's that a try or shot is defined in the rule book, and your scenario comes nowhere close to meeting the definition.

Remember, this an official's forum, we are rules based. Most of us played basketball and are aware of all the playground situations and tricks, but we have to put that stuff behind us as officials.

As far as points being awarded, we only care that points are awarded to the proper team.