Quote:
Originally posted by paxsonref
how many times have we given continuation on a shot where the ball is knocked loose, clearly out of possesion, regained, then shot and made. . . I am going to give the shooter the benefit, since if the foul caused the shot to be that woefully off that it is still in reach of the player, I would most likely rule that not as a shot, but just as losing the handle on the ball, and reward the kid for making an athletic play by being able to regain control and make an attempt, and if he isnt able to get the shot back up, makes it that much easier, then we just shoot 2
sorry airborne shooter may have been the wrong way to word it according to the rule book, but hopefully my point is made
[Edited by paxsonref on Jan 28th, 2005 at 11:34 AM]
|
No, you did make your point which is why I tried to be more precise in my post.
Continuous motion as defined only applies until the ball is clearly in flight, so if A1 is hammered but still manages to release the ball on a try he does not get a second chance. That's just the way the rules read.
The more interesting case is how do the rules apply in the case where A1 is fouled & loses the ball but not on a try. I believe what I posted is correct, that if A1 is fouled he does not get a chance to regain control & shoot, even if he's started his continuous motion. Taking it to a ridiculous extreme what if A1 is driving the lane, starts his motion, B1 reaches in and manages to knock the ball completely away from A1 as he is fouled. A1 doesn't get a chance to retrieve the ball & try again claimng continuous motion, does he?
The same principle applies in this sitch. And I call it that way.
Anyway, good discussion.