Shooting Foul? (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cbiCljb_umQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes.

Thank you. Can you elaborate?

It sounded like there was a whistle blown when the ball handler was way out at the top of the key prior to her "drive". The ball would become dead at that point. I think that was what the lead was trying to get people to understand. And if that wasn't the case, it looks like #15 fouled the ball handler prior to the shot anyway.

Thank you. There were six simultaneous games in the gym. That whistle was from one of the adjacent games. Afterward he signals player 15.

Since the foul was called on 15 I can live with no shots.

I'm putting her on the line

I'm pretty sure the whistle for this foul is the one I hear when Lead puts his arm up. I didn't know there was confusion about which whistle was which, I thought it was clear.

Contact by #15 is marginal, this should be a good bucket and foul on #21. I can see why he would wave off the shot if he got #15 for the foul, but he would be incorrect in doing so.

Yup, based on his decision to whistle 15 for a foul, the rest of it he handled correctly in terms of administration.

But I agree with AremRed: Score the basket and award one free throw for the foul on 21.

If the foul was called on #15 White the goal should have counted. The BH/D had started her shooting motion. She didn't dribble again after the whistle so continuous motion was still in play.

Yes it should be a shooting foul.

Peace

I agree however I think most refs (myself included) are really bad at giving a shooting foul that close to the gather due to the lengthy time and distance before the release. Incorrect by rule, but I see it happen a lot.

I was waiting for someone else to say that ;)

If the calling official just waits a beat after blowing his whistle he might have gotten it right. It would have given him time to process:

*She stopped dribbling...
*10 feet from the basket...
*With no teammates in sight, therefore...
*What the heck else was she going to do other than shoot?

Also, had he switched after the foul his partner might have been able to give him a nudge in the right direction by gently - and quietly - asking, "Are we counting that?"

If he still was going to (incorrectly) call it a non-shooting foul he really needed to be less nonchalant about waving off the goal. The way he did it tells me he had an "oh crap, that wasn't supposed to happen" moment when the ball went in.

It really is amazing what whistle timing can do for you. I've noticed my call percentages go up as I wait for the play to finish and then decide whether I need a whistle. There are lots of plays that start out as marginal (like the OP play) and develop into something more obvious that needs calling.

I'm not totally sure that suggesting a change to your partner during a switch is a good idea. If you want him to get it as shooting you should get to him before he leaves the area to go report and have a brief chat there. Plus given the narrow-minded view of continuation by most coaches I doubt the opposing coach would be very happy in getting your partner to change his call so late on something that looks like NBA-length continuation.

Lead in the OP does need to sell it better, but perhaps it's perfect for the level of play that he desires to work. :rolleyes:

It's not really suggesting, it's just planting a seed. On the flip side...during a camp I attended this month there was a play similar to the OP. I was T and my partner - who is one of my mentors - made the call at L (3-person). As she walked past me while we're switching she says, so only I can hear, "You have her shooting?" I said yes, she reported it as a shooting foul and we lined them up. No long conversation. One quiet question, one quiet answer. She wasn't completely sure so she asked.

I do not know about anybody else but I have never had a problem with calling this a foul in the act of shooting no matter how far out the foul was as long as it meets the requirements of the rule.

MTD, Sr.

Take an extra second -- much easier to sell a shooting foul if the whistle comes a beat later. And you may decide (by letting the play finish) that it's not actually a foul.

I agree. I can't see anything worth calling on #15, but even so, waving off the shot unfairly punishes the offense. I've got continuous motion here.

I don't see anything worth calling on 15 either. But, even it there was a foul that could considered a shooting foul, the basket can't count.

She traveled....and it wasn't really that close. She picked up the ball as she with her left foot on the floor (well before the right came back down), she stepped on the right, then stepped again to the left, then, after a clear delay, released the ball. The catch at the beginning and the release at the end were well separated from the foot necessary foot movements so it isn't even splitting a hair to determine that she traveled.

It is no different than a player who jumps to shoot, is fouled, then lands before releasing and making the shot. No shot, going to the line for 2.

Lot more to discuss on this play other than "shooting or not shooting".

This is a shooting foul at the time of the whistle. It should have been a no-call and a patient whistle would have created that outcome.

EDIT: There is a traveling but it's very close and requires slo-mo. One that in real time will more than likely go missed.

Just throwing this out there, and the time of the whistle, it doesn't look like she had started a habitual shooting motion. Just picking up a dribble doesn't necessarily constitute a shooting motion.

Depends on the rule set.

NCAA-M is the only rule set where I wouldn't be giving the player shots.

NFHS. It is a shot if the player has started their "habitual shooting motion".

Rule 4.41.3 The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.

To me it doesn't look like she starts her shot until after the whistle.

It looked like she carried the ball between :03 and :04

Correct. The NFHS and NBA both consider the gather to be the beginning of the "motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball" whereas NCAA-M specifically requires upward motion to be considered shooting.

Marginal.

They do? Not in any place I've seen (NFHS). First, there the NFHS doesn't even have the concept of "gather". In fact, neither does the NCAA despite how many people use that term.. I can't say about the NBA. To me, a "gather", even in NFHS, is not sufficient to determine it to be a shot. I need just a bit more for it to be a shot...some movement, once the ball is held, that normally leads to a shot. Simply picking up the ball is just not enough.

Agree.
If that is close, I'd love to see what it takes for it to not be close for you. To me, this one is pretty obvious, even at full speed and a horrible angle.

Rule 4-11-2 I think is the clearer reference to these plays:

If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she is permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight.

As soon as the player ended her dribble, her arm movements and steps tell us she's started her shooting motion. If the contact by 15 is illegal, I would allow the offensive player the customary arm and foot movements involved while holding the ball.

I get 4-11. However, she wasn't fouled after the start of her motion, she was fouled prior to any start of a motion. If she hasn't started her motion before the foul, I'm not awarding foul shots.

JMF said it best...every single context clue tells us as soon as she ended her dribble and was stepping to the basket, she had indeed started her motion to shoot....what the hell else is she doing? IMO, (and as AremRed stated), we (the collective we) do a poor job of putting players on the line.

When in doubt, or if it's close, I'll put the player on the line...the team whose player committed the illegal act does not get the benefit of the doubt.

I agree with that (assuming there was actually contact worthy of a foul).

At full speed, I can't quite tell whether she gathers before or after her left foot comes off the floor. Benefit of the doubt to the shooter, I probably wouldn't call that travel in real time because I'm not likely to see it that close.

At full speed, I can't quite tell whether she had gathered the ball when #15 swiped at her arm. Benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter there, too, and shots would be given (assuming I called the foul).

I recognize this is a case where the two benefits of the doubt are mutually exclusive, but I highly doubt I'd process it that fast in real time.

i watched the the video one time only. I agree with those who wondered what the hell 15 did to have a foul called. I agree with Camron that she traveled. i thought she put two hands on ball and then might have been touched by 15 at that moment. i did not see her arms moving up at that time. I'm not giving her two shots. i need to see some movement up before i give her two. that is giving her benefit of doubt because we know she could still shoot or pass. i will give her two if i see her on way up. before then i wont.

obviously, you have to gather the ball before you can shoot it but i dont see contact immediatelyh after the gather, down low, before arm moves up, as "habitual throwing motion etc."

i dont know about nba and it is end of july so i havnt read a book since april. im getting old. where does nfhs say the gather counts as part of the habitual motion etc?

i do know ncaa does not include foot movement for continuous motion. thx

It doesn't, shooting motion is totally the judgment of the official, it is not defined:

4-41 ART. 3

The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.

The word "gathering" should not ever be used. Quoting both the NFHS and NCAA rules: "The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball."

"(T)he motion which habitually precedes the releas of the ball" in our video is when the dribbler ends her dribble. It is my opinion, after watching the video, that #15 actions do not rise to the level of a foul, but was the dribbler was fouled by the next defensive player after #15. I agree with Camron that the dribbler was fouled in the act of shooting but her allowable foot movements ended before she released the ball in a FG.

MTD, Sr.

Same place it says this:
The habitual motion doesn't have to be upward motion. Many times, on a layup, it's a dip. It's whatever habitual movement precedes the shot.

Like, for example, the "gather" which ends the dribble and typically precedes a shot?

I watched the video again, I'm changing my mind. I'm giving 2 shots. She is starting the shot as she gets fouled. However, I'm still sticking by a gather doesn't mean shooting motion.

We had a long thread on this several years ago immediately after the NCAA stated that officials were not awarding FTs for fouls committed during the act of shooting properly and that after a player had gathered the ball fouls should be deemed in the act of shooting. NCAAM subsequently changed again a year or so later to the upward movement standard.
The NFHS has never had such a directive. I stated in the thread way back then that some sort of motion with the arms that indicated the start of an attempt to try for goal was necessary at the NFHS level. Simply ending the dribble is not enough as a player could also be passing or just coming to a stop. There has to be some movement after that point make the official believe that a try has begun.

Well that is not what the rules says. It says the habitual throwing movement starts a try. So how do you determine that other than the moment you gather the ball? Your arms are not necessarily going to go up to make a shot. True you could pass, but if they are not shooting, they can do something that looks like a pass. But even the casebook has a play that says if you are prevented from releasing on a shot, we are still to consider it a pass. But like many things these are philosophies as much as anything. I just do not agree that we cannot determine if they are shooting if they are fouled right after the gather.

Peace

As posted earlier, this is what the rule says, "These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started..."

I concur that the key is how one defines "usual throwing motion" or "habitual motion." I disagree that it is just gathering the ball. It is definitely something more.

I do not totally disagree other than there is not line of demarcation. And that is why the gather is often used. Either way if it is not defined, officials will rule all kinds of ways. This philosophy keeps us more consistent IMO.

Peace

Anything that gets officials to think the shot starts earlier is fine by me. Too many obvious shooting fouls get called "on the floor." One of my big pet peeves.

I am going to jump into the middle of the conversation between Nevada and Rutt; and I apologize if my post is slightly long. Who am I kidding everybody on the Forum knows I am the best at making a short story long, :p.

The definition of Continious Motion has been the same literally word-for-word for over fifty years (going back to the Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada Rules Committee) for both the NFHS Boys'/Girls' and NCAA Men rules committees (When the the NCAA stopped using NAGWS Rules in the mid-1980s and formed its own Women's Rules Committee it adopted the definition used by the NFHS and NCAA Men's rules committees.). That said, Rutt is on the correct path.

First, the word "gathering" should not ever be used; it sounds like a word that a radio or television announcer would use.

Second, let us look at the following play:

A1 (who shoots right-handed) is dribbling fast and hard towards Team A's basket. A1 ends his dribble by catching the ball with both of his hands while both of his feet are not in contact with the playing surface. The definition of Traveling describes what A1 can and cannot do to avoid committing a Traveling Violation before A1 either: (a) released the ball on a pass to a teammate; or (b) released the ball on a Field Goal Attempt.

If A1 is fouled by B1 at any time during (a) it is obvious that the foul by B1 is a Common Foul. It is play (b) that has been a problem for officials for years and years and years. But in (b) B1's foul against A1 is a foul committed while A1 is in the Act of Shooting; because the definition of Continuous Motion tells us that A1 can complete any legal foot movement between being fouled and releasing the ball for a Field Goal Attempt it is obvious that A1's actions to end his Dribble was the beginning of his Field Goal Attempt.

I am not a proponent of the "patient whistle" school of thought. I am a propoent of the "see the whole play" school of thought. Both (a) and (b) above are good examples of "seeing the whole play" school of thought. If one sees a foul by all means put air in the whistle but see the whole play.

MTD, Sr.

I think the concept of a patient whistle is more to gather more information and try and determine what is actually going on and/or was going to occur. Officials that blow the whistle very quickly also tend to get tunnel vision into going into the routine.

foul...report...move on - and fail to make the correct call. However if you see a foul and instead of putting air in the whistle right away hold off for a half second or so you may end up passing on the call or assigning the a different punishment than what you would have had you blown early.

We see fouls all game and don't call them, which is what "passing" on a call means. It means I saw the contact but didn't deem it necessary to call a foul. Most noticeable example. Rebounder gets bumped from behind but has the rebound clearly - pass. The same bump causes a travel or turnover - foul. Same contact, different outcomes, different action by the official.

We really don't have to use the term "passing" on a call given the definition of a foul/incidental contact:

The first example is someone who wasn't hindered from performing/participating in normal defensive or offensive movement. By rule it isn't a foul.

I call it "passing on the contact". Saying "incidental contact" confuses some coaches. :D

You should consult 4-11-2 more closely because you have this backwards.

According to the rule the player is only entitled to complete his customary foot and arm movement IF he has already started his throwing motion prior to being fouled.

You seem to advocate that the player is in the act of shooting simply because he has started his customary footwork before eventually throwing for goal. That is not true.

Furthermore, ending the dribble is not the beginning of a field goal attempt. It is merely an action which precedes it. The start of a FG attempt is some kind of throwing motion as stated in the rules.

Agreed. Obviously, a player has to end the dribble, catch or gather the ball before throwing it....whatever terminology you use. It is something that "habitually precedes release of the ball." 4-41-3. However, we have to look also at 4-41-1 and -2 along with 4-11-1 and 4-11-2 as has been cited above. Those sections reveal that not everything that "habitually precedes release" means a player is in act of shooting. Player has to be in a "throwing" motion as Nevada says.

Just playing devil's advocate, but what if the "throw" was indistinguishable from a dribble? What if the "shooter" dribbled hard enough on the last dribble that the ball bounced high enough (off of the floor) to enter the basket from the top... and actually went in?

In this situation there is never any upward "throw." There is no catch. no gather, just the last dribble downwards.

If this player were fouled would you award free throw(s)? If you do award free throw(s), the interesting bit would be exactly when would the foul need to occur in this "shot" process?

What you have described is a "dribble." If there is a foul at any time before the ball goes in the basket the ball is dead. no goal. no free throws unless in bonus.
Now, if after that last hard dribble, I jump up and try to tap the ball in, the moment my hand touches the ball the "tap" has started. If you foul at this point or after it is a shooting foul. Again, anything before is not a foul in act of shooting. It was a dribble....thx

That is not a shot attempt....would not even be a consideration.

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.

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:)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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...

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

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.

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 only rules you have on this is if they have started, at the time of the foul, habitual foot/arm movements that normally precede the a shot. If they have started those movements, they're are, by rule, in the act. You must make a judgement based on that. How they finish is not part of the rule that defines being in the act and is not a factor in the decision.

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....

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.

Not according to the rules.

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.

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.

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

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;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.

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.

[QUOTE=BigCat;965448]So, you're saying you have to read the player's mind if the foul prevents the release? It could have been a pass???

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

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.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;965451]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

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.

[QUOTE=BigCat;965453]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).

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

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;965456]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?

Here are a few...

And here is what the NFHS thinks about the play:

I'll call it based on what the NFHS has said.

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.

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.

We're all adults here, but I locked it anyway.