Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

Judgement is great when supported by rule, but, you are taking into account factors that are not supported by rule.....because it is easier.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Judgement is great when supported by rule, but, you are taking into account factors that are not supported by rule.....because it is easier.

The rule is based on the judgment of the official blowing his/her whistle.


4-41-2 A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team's own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.

[BigCat]

Lets all get along and agree to disagree if it comes to that....

[Camron Rust]

Sure, we must make judgement, but those judgement MUST be based on a RULE.

Here are the RULES I go by:

ART. 2 . . . A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player’s hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.
ART. 3 . . . The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.

You're saying that if a player passes after starting a shooting motion and being fouled, it was not a shot to start with. Back up that claim with a rule or case play. Show me ANYTHING close to supporting what you're proposing. ANYTHING?

I'm not saying it is always a shot when a player passes, but the FACT is that what follows the foul is not part of the definition of a try.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Can't debate the point with facts so attack the opponent? If your way was correct, surely you could come up with something better than that to support your point. Sure, we must make judgement, but those judgement MUST be based on a RULE.

Here are the RULES I go by:


You're saying that if a player passes after starting a shooting motion and being fouled, it was not a shot to start with. Back up that claim with a rule or case play. Show me ANYTHING close to supporting what you're proposing. ANYTHING?

I'm not saying it is always a shot when a player passes, but the FACT is that what follows the foul is not part of the definition of a try.

we are not saying a player passes "after starting a shooting motion" what we are saying is that you cannot tell if the person is shooting or passing. you want to say he has started a shooting motion. we say he has started a motion that could be either. we need to see nore to determine what it was. in this video the player grabs the ball low and if we froze the video at the time of the foul we wouldnt know what the call was...

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Here are the RULES I go by:


You're saying that if a player passes after starting a shooting motion and being fouled, it was not a shot to start with. Back up that claim with a rule or case play. Show me ANYTHING close to supporting what you're proposing. ANYTHING?

I'm not saying it is always a shot when a player passes, but the FACT is that what follows the foul is not part of the definition of a try.

The other part of this is NF 4-11-1/NCAA 4-8, better known as Continuous Motion.

Continuous motion applies to a try (or tap...NF def. only) for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.

Granted, if A1 is fouled but can't release the ball (s)he is absolved of the "clearly in flight" requirement but if A1 is fouled and releases the ball by passing it to a teammate, they've told us their intent. I don't necessarily have to read a player's mind as to what they planned to do at the moment they were fouled. Some situations are obvious. However if I'm not certain and they pass the ball prior to completing their legal movement they've answered any questions as to their plans.

[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...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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...

And that is precisely why you can't use what they do next to determine if they were shooting. Such a player shouldn't be awarded FTs. The RULES say it is based on what they were doing when they were fouled.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And that is precisely why you can't use what they do next to determine if they were shooting. Such a player shouldn't be awarded FTs. The RULES say it is based on what they were doing when they were fouled.

u cant read their minds....i cant read their minds. we dont know what they were doing when they were fouled. let it play out. if they abandon the shot because of the foul give them two shots. if the foul doesnt make them pass and the player passes anyway, then that has answered the question on whether it was a shot or pass....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

u cant read their minds....i cant read their minds. we dont know what they were doing when they were fouled. let it play out.
..

You don't have to read minds. If the movements up to the time of the foul look like the movements that precede a shot, the player is, by rule, in the act of shooting.

Originally Posted by BigCat

if they abandon the shot because of the foul give them two shots. if the foul doesnt make them pass and the player passes anyway, then that has answered the question on whether it was a shot or pass....

Not according to the rules.

[BigCat]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;965442]You don't have to read minds. If the movements up to the time of the foul look like the movements that precede a shot, the player is, by rule, in the act of shooting.

That is simply not true. a player is trying for goal, if in your judgment-the offical, he is throwing for goal. you have to make a judgment. simply cause the movements "look like the movements that precede a shot" that does not, by rule or anyting else mean the player IS in act of shooting. same movements can lead to a pass.