Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[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???

[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

[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).

[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?

[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.