Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[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.

[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.