Interesting perspective as I see that as an official projecting what he thinks shot form should look like. No dog in this fight but as fan of sport I've looked at this video several times..player is crossing half court with shot motion that begins with the legs ..as most would if stepping in to a one handed Half Court shot . Almost the same motion as layup but stepping into launch the half court. The ref opinion is the one that matters but you could have 50 refs viewing the film say it's not a shot and that won't change the fact she should have been shooting 3 free throws..again no dog in the fight.

 

Why should 3 shots have been awarded?

Why should 3 shots have been awarded?

IMO video shows player attempting shot from behind 3 point arc = 3 FTs

IMO video shows player attempting shot from behind 3 point arc = 3 FTs

 

Did you see her gather the ball before being fouled? When did the dribble end vs when did the foul occur?

After thinking about this more, there are a few things that bother me.

First, there were many other bad decisions, bad calls, ill-advised shots and unforced turnovers that got this game to the point of arguing 2 calls.

For you Triple sevens , it seems you have a need to "be right"? Maybe some relation to Ison? Your video showed a view from the" back" side and was blocked by the Sk player.What is not seen is the foul by the defender, with the body and arm, BEFORE the alleged attempt. So regardless if it was an attempt, as you want to believe, it was after the foul occured.

Anyhow, right or wrong, call is history. One loss in Dec. doesn't destroy a season. I don't know if these two teams meet again in reg season play, but if they don't, I believe they can meet in district and region play?

This is why I have stated from the beginning that this is more of a throw and not a shot. This is clearly not a legitimate shot attempt. Good effort by the player to sale it though. The NBA would not call this a shot attempt because and Clyde provided the perfect explanation as to why it is not.

Did you see her gather the ball before being fouled? When did the dribble end vs when did the foul occur?

IMO player shot motion began as right foot crosses half court and she brings ball up for shot which winds up being one handed off left foot perhaps due to foul. Just my opinion but if player was going into shot motion when eight foot hit and then foul occurs..I think she at the line for 3

I do have another rules question for Clyde. As a previous poster stated. There were a number of occasions on an outside shot attempt by WV that a WV player in the paint simply would fall in an effort to draw a foul. I can't say every fall but I watched on two occasions from the base line where the player simply fell to attempt to have a foul called. Is there a ruling against this type of play? Seems very dangerous as bodies would often begin piling up over the fallen player.

I do have another rules question for Clyde. As a previous poster stated. There were a number of occasions on an outside shot attempt by WV that a WV player in the paint simply would fall in an effort to draw a foul. I can't say every fall but I watched on two occasions from the base line where the player simply fell to attempt to have a foul called. Is there a ruling against this type of play? Seems very dangerous as bodies would often begin piling up over the fallen player.

 

If a defender falls without being contacted and then an offensive player falls as a result it is almost always a foul on the defender. Saw it last night in CCH Lou Central game.

Clyde, I think you misunderstood the question. I think what sentinal is saying is , and I also witnessed it, it was an offensive player "flopping " in an attempt to draw fouls on Sks bigs as they were crashing the boards on a wv shot. Dangerous situation as bodies were hitting the floor after tripping over "flopper".Good way to end someones season just to get sks bigger girls in foul trouble! Guess its hard to call if not directly seen by official.....

not to get too much in the middle of this one so in the name of compromise I'll make two comments:

 

1) Stalling...patient...same result with different words if you're holding the ball out top to bring the defense

 

2) Saw the video..shot..no doubt..one hand or two does not matter.

 

HardWoodFan. For what its worth, my use of different words was simply because of the different manner and order the "stalls" happened. That is all. Simply put I agree with your first point. (And the second also.)

 

Some intense, accusing, and misleading posters were giving false info. I simply used the word stall for SK because their version, which happened first, was ONE possession where they held the ball for over two minutes, maybe close to three while Walton stayed in a 1-3-1. Walton's coach instructed them to wait and allow SK to stall until maybe a little over two minutes. At that point, Walton brought their defense out to make SK move the ball. Again, this was ONE possession.

 

I only used a different word for Walton's version because, although it was still a stall tactic, it was much smaller segments of time over maybe four or so possessions over the last 2 minutes of the game.

 

In the end, they were both attempts to shorten the game, so no big deal.

So what you are saying is, you have never seen an official wave off a made layup , and point to the floor? I always thought that meant the foul occured prior to the attempt?

And as far as your comment that Haliey Ison shoots as many shots with her left as she does with her right......while that is true...

in the paint, around the bucket... etc I think you are way out in left field if you want me or anyone else to believe she shoots 3's left handed! Seen her play a few times and dont ever recall thinking or commenting to anyone else about her ability to shoot from the perimeter left handed .

Two players involved and I'm sure when both were asked, both players versions were different! I wouldn't expect anything different!

Didn't add my 2 cents to argue ,as I don't normally argue with people who I'm sure played the game and know more about the rules than I do.

Just wanted to point out my obversations.

 

Your observations are fine and I don't take them offensive or for argument.

 

We can agree for sure about the intentional. It is absolutely a bigger deal than the non shooting foul call. In fact, it is really the only deal. If that doesn't happen, and the game is decided by the players on the court, I have zero issues. I probably should have mentioned that in my first response to you, because again, it was crazy to call that in that situation, and in that context.

 

As far as your question...Yes, I have seen a official wave off a made lay up or shot, and point to the floor. I have also seen them count it, when they probably should not have. I am not making a point with that. I am just stating I have seen it both ways. All I can say is in this case, I still believe the player was shooting. And I am very okay if folks don't agree.

 

As far as your point about Ison, I never meant to imply that she shoots from the perimeter left handed. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I meant exactly what you said, that with shots around the bucket, out of the post, or driving, she could very well get enough with her left to make her shots count close to 40/60 left or right attempts.

 

Again though, your 2 cents is fine.

After thinking about this more, there are a few things that bother me.

First, there were many other bad decisions, bad calls, ill-advised shots and unforced turnovers that got this game to the point of arguing 2 calls.

For you Triple sevens , it seems you have a need to "be right"? Maybe some relation to Ison? Your video showed a view from the" back" side and was blocked by the Sk player.What is not seen is the foul by the defender, with the body and arm, BEFORE the alleged attempt. So regardless if it was an attempt, as you want to believe, it was after the foul occured.

Anyhow, right or wrong, call is history. One loss in Dec. doesn't destroy a season. I don't know if these two teams meet again in reg season play, but if they don't, I believe they can meet in district and region play?

 

I don't have a need to be right. I do however have a competitive drive. A slightly arrogant post at the beginning of this thread stated that the intentional foul made no difference. Yeah..that got me going. And as I stated in an earlier post, sometimes you have to take a stand. The intentional foul robbed Walton of the chance they had played the entire game to give themselves.

 

You take that on top of the fact that it is a district rival, a district seeding game, and you just want to see the game played out by the players, it get's aggravating. I think it is just that simple.

 

You are right though, there is a lot of season for the girls to play. Although a tough pill to swallow watching how it had to end, it does not define their season. The best thing for them to do now is put it behind them, and continue to work to be the best version of themselves. I trust that they and the coaches will continue to do that.

I went to an official who is a much better official than me. He said "no shot" as she never "gathered" in order to end the dribble.

 

First of all, if it was not for the intentional foul call, this situation probably does not happen. I have the biggest issue with that? Did you ask your colleague about that one?

 

Secondly, I am curious as to why you didn't respond to this with your own opinion before asking someone else. I have never seen on here a time where you deferred official's instruction and interpretation to a "superior". I thought that was interesting, but did not want to speculate. Perhaps you could help me out here?

 

Lastly, with the small description you give as being a condition of a shooting foul, I can say that yes, I see those things. A "gather" in order to end the dribble. Perhaps you need to be more specific, but the video shows the ball gathered, it shows even a shot off of two feet. And both of these are when the hold and shove come.

First of all, if it was not for the intentional foul call, this situation probably does not happen. I have the biggest issue with that? Did you ask your colleague about that one?

 

Secondly, I am curious as to why you didn't respond to this with your own opinion before asking someone else. I have never seen on here a time where you deferred official's instruction and interpretation to a "superior". I thought that was interesting, but did not want to speculate. Perhaps you could help me out here?

 

Lastly, with the small description you give as being a condition of a shooting foul, I can say that yes, I see those things. A "gather" in order to end the dribble. Perhaps you need to be more specific, but the video shows the ball gathered, it shows even a shot off of two feet. And both of these are when the hold and shove come.

 

It was so close that I wanted someone better than me to judge it. I would have probably called it shooting but after checking into it I think I would have been incorrect.

It was so close that I wanted someone better than me to judge it. I would have probably called it shooting but after checking into it I think I would have been incorrect.

 

Fair enough. And thanks for your honesty.