Shooting Foul? (Video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

...

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.

...

Because it is not lazy. There are a lot of factors that come into play. Did A1 now have a clear path to basket? Is there 6' 9" shot blocker in front of A1? A1 has made this 4 times in the game and each time kicked it out to a jump shooter. A1 has passed for an alley-oop the last 2 times he drove down the lane. A1 is the leading scorer in the league and never passes. Team A is up by 4 with 30 seconds left and has no intention of shooting. Team A is down by 2 with 10 seconds left.

It not just as basic as "oh, A1 got hit and his movement could have preceded a shot". There needs to be some sort of intelligence involved in the decision making process.

[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]

[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.

[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...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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...

You're not, but others are. We've been through this before and their position is that if they pass it can't be a shot no matter what happened before.

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE=BigCat;965448]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

So, you're saying you have to read the player's mind if the foul prevents the release? It could have been a pass???

[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]

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.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;965451]

Originally Posted by BigCat

So, you're saying you have to read the player's mind if the foul prevents the release? It could have been a pass???

I, we, have to make a judgment. did it prevent or not. what i see you saying is if the m ovemtns look like a shot it is a shot and no judgment... lets move to something else...thx

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're not, but others are. We've been through this before and their position is that if they pass it can't be a shot no matter what happened before.

if the foul makes them pass, in any way...even remotely.. i will call it a shot. i have to see everything to determine that. thx for discussion

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

if the foul makes them pass, in any way...even remotely.. i will call it a shot. i have to see everything to determine that. thx for discussion

Then you and I agree.

Some say the fact that they pass at all means it can't be a shot.....and THAT is what I disagree with. If I think they were shooting up to the time of the foul, they're going to the line.

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE=BigCat;965453]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I, we, have to make a judgment. did it prevent or not. what i see you saying is if the m ovemtns look like a shot it is a shot and no judgment... lets move to something else...thx

That isn't what I'm saying. I agree it is judgement, but saying that ending in a pass means it is can't be a shot isn't judgement, that is making it a "rule" (a made up rule).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're not, but others are. We've been through this before and their position is that if they pass it can't be a shot no matter what happened before.

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

[BigCat]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;965456]

Originally Posted by BigCat

That isn't what I'm saying. I agree it is judgement, but saying that ending in a pass means it is can't be a shot isn't judgement, that is making it a "rule" (a made up rule).

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?