something I've observed

fullor30

representing wrote
After my Girls JV game today (which went pretty smooth without problems), I stuck around to watch the first half of the Varsity game before I had to leave. Saw something that the officials did that I don't think I've seen done the same way in any other games I've seen in a similar situation:

V dribbles the ball down to the endline and gets under the basket. Stops... then it looks as if she is going up to try and shoot the ball. [/COLOR]Get's fouled. Referee points to the OOB spot nearest the foul and says "underneath". Seems like I was the only one to hear this as the gym was pretty quiet still at this moment. He goes to table to report the foul and then points again to OOB spot. Gym erupts and coach is asking "wasn't she shooting?!"

At halftime I go to the locker room with the referees to grab my bag, but I just had to ask. "Why wasn't that a shooting foul?" His response; "She was behind the basket, there's no way she could have shot for an attempt to score points". His partner agreed and I left it at that.

Am I missing something here or does it seem like they messed up that call? The girl definitely went up for a shot, and it did not seem as if she was too far under the basket that she couldn't maybe swing her arm around to get a better angle at a "do-able" shot.

It's impossible to me based on your description to comment. What may have happened was she felt the foul and attempted to 'sell' an attempted shot with a late follow through after the whistle. If you were in locker room during my halftime and asked me 'why wasn't that a shooting foul' I wouldn't be happy. You sound like the coach for pete's sake.

representing

fullor30 wrote
It's impossible to me based on your description to comment. What may have happened was she felt the foul and attempted to 'sell' an attempted shot with a late follow through after the whistle.

That could be possible... sorry for a not-so-good description.

fullor30 wrote
If you were in locker room during my halftime and asked me 'why wasn't that a shooting foul' I wouldn't be happy

He wanted me to comment on the half so far, so I brought that up. I wouldn't have gone in and ask that without you saying something like that.

fullor30 wrote
You sound like the coach for pete's sake.

Um, isn't that what this forum is for, to ask questions? Not like I was asking you to give me the square root of 428137011412022025.

Which, btw, is 654321795.

fullor30

representing wrote
That could be possible... sorry for a not-so-good description.

He wanted me to comment on the half so far, so I brought that up. I wouldn't have gone in and ask that without you saying something like that.

Um, isn't that what this forum is for, to ask questions? Not like I was asking you to give me the square root of 428137011412022025.

Which, btw, is 654321795.

You left that part out. To me, you asked him an unsolicited question.

ODJ

The question to ask that official is would he had disallowed the basket if she somehow had made the shot?

representing

ODJ wrote
The question to ask that official is would he had disallowed the basket if she somehow had made the shot?

haha that is a good question, didn't think of that. I'm seeing him tomorrow I'll be sure to ask that🙂

deecee

fullor30 wrote
It's impossible to me based on your description to comment. What may have happened was she felt the foul and attempted to 'sell' an attempted shot with a late follow through after the whistle. If you were in locker room during my halftime and asked me 'why wasn't that a shooting foul' I wouldn't be happy. You sound like the coach for pete's sake.

Why would you be upset if a fellow official asks you a question as such? Its between you and a fellow official. Explain it to him, especially if they might learn something.

And sometimes I watch an official make a call that is so out of left field I love to ask them what they saw on that and why they went one way versus another.

Besides his explanation is a bit weak. Its not our place to judge what is possible or not. We are there to judge the action as it seems fit. Whether a player can or cannot make a shot is of no consequence. It might have been a hail mary attempt but hey, its still an attempt. And if I work with a partner who has that kind of attitude I sure as hell would be upset because I feel as though its a disservice to the game and to officiating.

Was a player making an attempt to put up a shot? That is the only question that needs to be answered. Your feelings on whether a shot is a good one or not has no bearing and I do believe that this type of personal intergection is a big cause for officiating being so subjective in certain situations when it need not be. (end rant)

Jurassic Referee

representing wrote
He wanted me to comment on the half so far, so I brought that up.

Your question was legitimate. And the answer that you received was also legitimate. The official told you that in his opinion the player wasn't in the act of shooting. In his opinion, the player could have been in the act of passing instead.

Iow, it was a judgment call. And by inferring that he "messed up that call", all that you're doing now is questioning his judgment and saying that your judgment is better.

BillyMac

representing wrote
"She was behind the basket, there's no way she could have shot for an attempt to score points".

YouTube - Larry Bird behind the backboard unbelievable shot

mcdanrd

BillyMac wrote
YouTube - Larry Bird behind the backboard unbelievable shot

I certainly don't know NBA rules but you can see the offical waving off the shot, I assume because it went over the top of the backboard as in NFHS 7.1.2b.

iiicream

BillyMac wrote
YouTube - Larry Bird behind the backboard unbelievable shot

So what do we have if Bird was fouled in this situation (or a high school player for that matter) ?

representing

iiicream wrote
So what do we have if Bird was fouled in this situation (or a high school player for that matter) ?

Hm... good question. I wish I had my rulebook to look this up but it is MIA right now. Vet officials, any input?

APG

mcdanrd wrote
I certainly don't know NBA rules but you can see the offical waving off the shot, I assume because it went over the top of the backboard as in NFHS 7.1.2b.

Yes that shot was waved off and didn't count. If that shot was made now though, the shot would of been legal. And yes, this would be illegal in under NFHS.

APG

iiicream wrote
So what do we have if Bird was fouled in this situation (or a high school player for that matter) ?

NBA Casebook 2009-2010

145. Player A1 is dribbling under the basket and behind the backboard when he is nudged out-of-bounds by Player B1. A foul is called on Player B1, and, as Player A1 is falling out-of-bounds, he attempts a field goal which must pass directly behind the backboard. How many free throw attempts are awarded if this is the first team foul on Team B?

None. The ball is awarded to Team A at the free throw line extended on either side of the court. Since the basket cannot be counted if it goes behind the backboard, it cannot be considered a field goal attempt. This is not to be confused with the foul which occurs in front of the backboard and momentum causes the field goal to be attempted directly behind the backboard.

RULE 8 - SECTION II - b

mcdanrd

AllPurposeGamer wrote
NBA Casebook 2009-2010

None. The ball is awarded to Team A at the free throw line extended on either side of the court. Since the basket cannot be counted if it goes behind the backboard, it cannot be considered a field goal attempt.
RULE 8 - SECTION II - b

According to this rule, the basket cannot be counted if it goes behind the backboard

APG

mcdanrd wrote
According to this rule, the basket cannot be counted if it goes behind the backboard

The basket can not be counted if the ball passes DIRECTLY over the top of the backboard

RULE NO. 8—OUT-OF-BOUNDS AND THROW-IN

Section II—Ball
b. Any ball that rebounds or passes directly behind the backboard, in either direction, from any point is considered out-of-bounds.

Kobe Bryant earlier this season took a shot from behind the basket, and the basket counted because the ball didn't go directly behind the basket but rather at an angle.

Nevadaref

representing wrote
After my Girls JV game today (which went pretty smooth without problems), I stuck around to watch the first half of the Varsity game before I had to leave. Saw something that the officials did that I don't think I've seen done the same way in any other games I've seen in a similar situation:

V dribbles the ball down to the endline and gets under the basket. Stops... then it looks as if she is going up to try and shoot the ball. Get's fouled. Referee points to the OOB spot nearest the foul and says "underneath". Seems like I was the only one to hear this as the gym was pretty quiet still at this moment. He goes to table to report the foul and then points again to OOB spot. Gym erupts and coach is asking "wasn't she shooting?!"

At halftime I go to the locker room with the referees to grab my bag, but I just had to ask. "Why wasn't that a shooting foul?" His response; "She was behind the basket, there's no way she could have shot for an attempt to score points". His partner agreed and I left it at that.

Am I missing something here or does it seem like they messed up that call? The girl definitely went up for a shot, and it did not seem as if she was too far under the basket that she couldn't maybe swing her arm around to get a better angle at a "do-able" shot.

To answer your question, there is no NFHS rule which prevents such a situation from being a foul in the act of shooting. It is up to the discretion of the official to decide if the player was trying for goal when fouled. There is no inbounds area of the court from which a player is not allowed to try for goal.

AKOFL

Nevadaref wrote
To answer your question, there is no NFHS rule which prevents such a situation from being a foul in the act of shooting. It is up to the discretion of the official to decide if the player was trying for goal when fouled. There is no inbounds area of the court from which a player is not allowed to try for goal.

So would you wave off the shot if it goes and give 2 shots for the foul? This is for someone who tries a shot frombehind the backboard and is fouled. the shot travels up and over the top of the glass and goes in.

Nevadaref

AKOFL wrote
So would you wave off the shot if it goes and give 2 shots for the foul? This is for someone who tries a shot frombehind the backboard and is fouled. the shot travels up and over the top of the glass and goes in.

In that specific case, yes.

However, I was picturing a player who was under the basket and behind the plane of the backboard trying to shoot the up and under, not over the top.

just another ref

Not sure about this one. Was this player not attempting to score by throwing the ball into the basket? Does this not mean it is a try, even if the player may have misjudged where he was on the floor?

Amesman

In the case of a player behind the backboard, say, basically facing the free throw line and "attempting" a "shot" and getting fouled, would this not be akin to shooting at the wrong basket (i.e. not a legit try) attempt so no FTAs merited?