Wilson Sting
Years ago
I've seen it a couple of times this season including tonight with Randle. Is it a new rule that if you are driving to the basket and fouled you get 2 free throws, even if you are clearly going to pass the ball?
Believe it is if you pick the ball up you are deemed to be in act of shooting ot shouldn't be the umpires interp if you will pass or shòot. But i could be wrong
Dazz
Years ago
It seems to be a very common interpretation. It especially seems to be one of those calls that favours smaller guys who get clumsily fouled when driving through the key.
Three To Make Two
Years ago
I don't mind this interpretation.
If you're driving to the basket your intention is to score, You might change your mind and pass if you're confronted by a shotblocker. Or you might pass if you're bumped and think you wont make the shot but hit someone who's open. But if your intention is to score once you've gathered the ball and are in your steps, shooting foul.
Three to Make Two, what about the drive and kick? Players often drive to draw defenders and open up outside shooters.
razor
Years ago
Hey if you don't foul the player driving to the basket he won't get 2 FTS.
proud
Years ago
I think if it encourages players trying to get to the hoop then that is great, let's encourage (not reward) players penetrating.
I think refs are blowing their whistle too early in terms of knowing what a player intends to do but we also see players look at shooting when there's a foul on the floor so hopefully it evens itself out and we see a lot more little guys attacking the tall timber
Dazz
Years ago
Personally, I think that any foul in your paint should result in free-throws.
What annoys me though, is that a little guy will lean in and initiate contact then throw up the ball when the whistle comes and gets rewarded with FT's for a really soft foul.
But big guys get absolutely mugged under the basket and get nothing.
I have always liked that Basketball has a place in the team for all sizes, but it seems to me that over the past few years the NBL has become a very unfavourable environment for big guys.
XY
Years ago
I have heard it explained sometimes that the person was in the shooting motion, then was fouled, then passed off when the foul was enough to prevent a shot being put up. Hence shots.
If the intention was always to pass, it should be a side ball.
Wilson Sting
Years ago
I've got no problem if a ref is uncertain if they were shooting or not to call the shots (advantage to the offensive team), it's just the ones where they are clearly going to pass (ie Randle with his back to the basket ready to kick out on Friday night) that should be a side ball.
Also agree comments re. big guys. One play on Friday DJ beat Bruce, Bruce clearly pushed him with 2 hands in the back to draw the early foul but no call.
Prather on Friday against NZ was cutting towards the basket, but he didnt have the ball.
The ball was in the hands of another player, the player went to pass it to him but was sort of held back.
Prather never touched the ball, yet he got 2 FTs.
They werent in the bonus either.
This league has lost the plot.
Three To Make Two
Years ago
@anon #176: if it is a drive and dish, that's fair enough, not free throws. But if the driver passes off because he's been fouled and passing was a better option than chucking it up, then the intention was to shoot until fouled, so free throws. This is where the refs get to earn their big bikkies.
You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.
Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.
An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 12:49 am, Sat 27 Apr 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754
