[Kansas Ref]

As you well already know...Continuous motion [CM] principles allow for the completion of customary arm, hand, and footwork movements that are related to the “try for goal” [i.e., shot attempt] provided that these such movements occur AFTER the dribble has ended [i.e., been completed]. In my experience there are two garden variety types of plays that are encountered wherein the official must adjudicate based on CM principles:

Case # 1) When a Jump Shot” or “Lay Up” occurs and shooter gets fouled (e.g., hit on arm, wrist, poked in the gut/chest) in the act of shooting. The goal is scored and we award a FT (we get this call correct with 99.9% accuracy).

Case # 2) When a “dribble drive/slash” to the basket occurs and the “imminent shooter” is fouled after ending the dribble and while s/he is subsequently “taking steps towards the basket to shoot” and it’s obvious that a shot attempt is forthcoming. The tendency is call it “on-the-floor” despite the CM requirements having been met. We get this call correct less than 99.9% of the time. Why? I wondered. After many observations and conversations I reached this conclusion: Refs are reluctant to recognize and award the CM because in their mind the shooter is still “on the floor”--despite the CM requirements having been met. I'm not so sure that this is necessarily intentionally "kicking a rule" or if it is a lack of sophistication in the Ref's understanding of CM principles.