Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I am going to have to disagree with you adamantly on this one. Because the rule in the NF basically says that once you start the motion you are allowed to continue that motion to the basket. That means as long as you do not dribble, or make a move not associated with any other action, the basket should could. The NBA just teaches it better and the "lag time" you reference is not anything different in the NF rule. That is why people have gone to saying "The gather" is the starting point of a shot. But if you put the ball down again after being fouled in an NBA game, the time to be awarded shots on a foul is over. That happened a couple of times in the NBA Finals alone and the issue was if they should give shots or not after the foul. Players at that level do what they can to get the advantage where high school players feel they need to complete their predetermined move. And high school officials have convinced themselves the rule is different and do everything to not awarded a shot. That is why there is the long standing myth used, "on the floor." It is clear that many high school officials do not realize that the shooting motion has little to do with if you are on the floor or not.
Peace
|
I disagree with your blanket assessment of HS referees. Here in my IAABO chapter in Connecticut, we are taught from the beginning that the act of shooting begins as soon as the shooter ends his dribble. We can call it a shooting foul if the player could have conceivably been in the act of shooting at the time of the foul. This can and does mean that a shooting foul can arise from a player who is fouled as he picks up the dribble, regardless of whether the shooter proceeds to take a legal step, jump, or otherwise rise up and shoot, or even if the player is unable to complete any of these acts due to the foul. What I see in the NBA is players getting two or even three steps following the foul and still being given "continuation". It is a different interpretation. Im sure a quick youtube search would reveal a lot of examples of "and ones" in the NBA that would not be three point plays in NFHS.
But there is no reason to quibble on this. The continuation interpretation has a very small impact on the game and your original point still holds.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk