thank you!

A foul while shooting and then a pass, because of the foul is a shooting foul....as i said long ago. The question is ---was/is the player "in the act" at the time of contact. If you make that determination at the moment of contact then you , in my humble opinion, are not "officiating" as you said to me above. The ball moving upward can be a shot or a pass. As i said, i will error on side of shot but i will wait to see what happens next.

you are in effect declaring that any upward movement with the ball is a shot. that is not officiating...

RevisedAgain:
CM speaks of a fouled player, but that player need not be the one "allowed to finish any and all legal footwork".
The application of "Continuous Motion" is most often -- if not exclusively by most -- applied to the situation in which a defender fouls a player in the act of shooting.
However, I think it applies to a situation perhaps not as common but still likely to occur and in need of clarification, which I think 4-11 does well. It doesn't regard a foul against a player in the act of shooting as much as another player while a teammate is in the act of shooting.
Please hear me out.
What intrigues me about 4-11, "Continuous Motion", is that it does not seem to apply solely to a foul against a player in the act of shooting, hence a "fouled player there", though it certainly could, but to a foul that occurs "over there" by any defender while the act of shooting is occurring somewhere else.
Continuous motion answers the question "what is the result of the illegal action of a player against a teammate of a player in the act of shooting in another place at the same time", more than what happens when a foul occurs upon a player in the act of shooting.
The definition of "Continuous Motion" does not speak of a fouled player who is in the act of shooting. Yes, it could, and it certainly applies to that. But it seems more to refer to the disposition of the activity of the player in the act of shooting while a foul occurs by a defender upon another offensive player somewhere other than at the site of the act of shooting.
I realize I'm dealing with a major shift in paradigm here for many.
But. . .Make sense?
I see foul "over there" while a teammate is in the act of shooting, I think "Continuous Motion." Otherwise, if a foul is committed against a person making an attempt at goal, I think, "Act of Shooting."
You?
Or ought I take up curling?

Not going to rehash this all again, but no, any upward movement is not automatically a shot. You have to officiate the play and make a decision. You base the decision on what you feel the player was doing (or trying to do) at the time of the foul. What happens next is not part of that decision. That is what the FED has specified.

Decision ...
 

Agree. It's not in any mechanics manual, but, on the close calls, once I come to that decision, I immediately announce it, loudly, at the site of the foul, "That's a shot", "That's a pass", or "No shot". I do this immediately, and loudly, at the site of the foul, because I don't want my partner, the players, the fans, and, especially, the coaches, to be surprised by my decision while I'm reporting to the table.

That's correct. It's any foul by the defense after the offensive player with the ball has started a try or tap.


I make no distinction between the two.

the last sentence of 4-41-2 (i think) says that it is not "essential" that the player release the ball because the foul may have prevented the release. he may be referring to an interp but i don't recall a specific play in the case book. maybe there is one..

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

4-41-2: A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player’s hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.

Also, the rule points out that it is necessary for an official to use judgment to make a decision as to whether, or not, the player is throwing, or attempting to throw, for goal.

Nice citation. Thanks BigCat. One can't argue with this rule. Always listen to bob. It's good judgment, and good decisions, that allow basketball officials to get paid the big bucks. That's how I paid for my villa in Tuscany. If any Forum members are ever in Tuscany, be sure to stop by and say "Hello".

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.G0Jp...=0&w=300&h=300

Thx Billy. I knew if i cited the rule you'd post it for me:) I'm not talking about the situation when the foul causes a player to dump/pass the ball or hold onto it. That's a shooting foul, 2 shots all day. I'm talking about the situation when the foul has no effect on the offensive player, minimal contact or even 'Phantom" call.

A player can be taking the ball up to shoot or pass. I think of 2 on 1 situation. i have the ball and pick it up…begin upward movement….phantom whistle. At that moment i meet the technical definition of 'in the act" but the same movements are necessary for a pass. ---Im interpreting others to say that the referee must freeze the situation at that moment and determine if it is a pass or shot. i believe that's a guess. If the player, a split second later follows through and dumps the ball to the teammate why would i not consider that? When you look at the whole play it looks clear that he was passing the ball. Again, if you freeze it while the player is taking the ball up i believe it is a guess.

Finally, if they didn't want you to consider what happens to the ball after contact there would be no need to mention the last sentence about the foul preventing the release of the ball. The inference is that if the foul has no effect on the play the player should shoot the ball.

We must decide what the player was doing at the time of contact but I believe we can and must look at what happens immediately thereafter….

Hypothesis (Scientist Talk For An Educated Guess) ...
 

It's not just a guess, it's an educated guess based on, in my case, thirty-four years of observing such plays, and the immediate aftermath of such plays. Am I right 100% of the time on such plays? No. But, I bet that I come up with the correct decision almost all the time. And, it's a decision that I always sell ("That's a shot", "That's a pass", "No shot"). It's never a wishy-washy call for me. Any semblance of doubt in my call would always invite criticism from the coaches.

You are looking at the play and the "immediate aftermath." that is what i am saying. I'm not going to freeze everything at the moment of contact or the moment the whistle is blown. No matter how many years we've done this there are times when we need to keep looking at the play to determine what the player was doing at the time of the whistle.

Patient Whistle ...
 

We call this a patient whistle, and we use it in a lot of situations, not just the situation described in this thread.

I agree completely. In an ideal world there wouldn't be a whistle because it had no effect on play. But if there is one…that has no effect on play..and then player immediately after whistle dumps it off i think you should consider the dump off. Don't award 2 shots. Otherwise, your calling a foul on a play where there was none, and then, making it worse by giving two shots. A view of the entire play proves it was a pass….Again, why not take into account what the player did with the ball after the phantom whistle to help you figure out what he was doing with the ball at the time of the whistle? that's is my point.

I don't think its that black and white. I can't read a players mind but they can't read mine either. If they are going up for a shot leaving their feet/stepping and elevating the ball in what I would normally consider and shooting motion and they get fouled that is shooting foul. What if my patient whistle lets the player feel like the contact isn't going to get called and the shot will now be out of rhythm or off balance and gives up on teh shot because of the contact and passes. I'm not a mind reader. Niether are they. If they are fouled in the act of shooting its shots regardless of whether: they travel after the foul, turn it into a pass, make the hoop. All those things do is determine how many shots on the shooting foul.

By the same token when a player feels contact or hears and whistle and turns it into a shot attempt I'm going to make it the NBA. I'm going back to the point of the initial foul.

Experience ...
 

There's certainly enough information here (shot, shooting motion) to call it a shooting foul on a test question. If one makes the same determination (shot, shooting motion) on the court, in a real game, in real time, then it's also a shooting foul. Easy call.

The hard part is being in the right position, being patient, using correct judgment, and making the correct decision, that there has, indeed, been a shot, or that a shooting motion has occurred, which will result in a shooting foul situation. This is when experience, seeing this play hundreds of times, can be very helpful.

Every once in a while, in a two on one situation, the ball handler will only have the intention of elevating the ball to draw the defender, and then make a last second pass as the foul is occurring. We have to be ready, and willing, to make that call (nonshooting situation) when it occurs. Patience, experience, judgment, and decision making, are all part of making the correct call here. And still, after all that, speaking for myself, sometimes we will blow the call.

For kicks, I have occasionally asked a fouled player, while at the free throw line waiting for substitutes to enter, "That was a shot, right?", to have him answer, meekly, "Sure, if you say so".

I will only call the nonshooting situation ("That's a pass", "No shot") if I am 100% sure, otherwise, if there's any small doubt in my mind, I will err toward the side of calling it a shooting foul ("That's a shot"). In all cases, I announce my decision, loudly, at the site of the foul, and I'll sell the heck out of it ("That's a shot", "That's a pass", or "No shot").

(Note to rookies: Never, under any circumstances call, "On the floor".)