Continuous Motion/Traveling

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

Break your play down into each individual occurrence....

Foul in act first....then travel....still must reward the foul and the penalty for the foul is.....

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think you can count the basket if it goes in after the travel, but I would reward the shots if they were shooting for sure.

Peace

The definition of Continuous Motion speaks of fouled player being allowed to finish any and all legal footwork. The player in the situation described in the OP has been fouled in the Act of Shooting and by rule the successful FGA is not counted and the fouled player is awarded two FTs.

When I think of the CM Rule I think of two plays:

1) A1 is fouled by B1 on his shooting arm and the foul does not impede his foot work and none-the-less he still travels before releasing the ball on his FGA.

2) B1's foul on A1 is of such that it causes A1 to travel before A1 can release the ball on his FGA.

By rule, in both (1) and (2) the FGA does not count and we award two FTs. But the foul in (2) and always bothered me because A1 traveled not of his own volition as in (1) but because of B1's foul and CM does not allow for any distinction between the two.

Just some food for thought.

MTD, Sr.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

By rule, in both (1) and (2) the FGA does not count and we award two FTs. But the foul in (2) and always bothered me because A1 traveled not of his own volition as in (1) but because of B1's foul and CM does not allow for any distinction between the two.

Just some food for thought.

MTD, Sr.

I think it would become awfully hard (and controversial) for refs to have to decide if the travel was "caused" by the foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I think it would become awfully hard (and controversial) for refs to have to decide if the travel was "caused" by the foul.

I do not think that is hard. That might be the reason you call a foul in the first place. If the illegal contact did not take place, you have to decided if that is the reason they traveled or lost balance to travel. I do not think it is that hard at all. I do it every game I call and make a judgment that is appropriate.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I think it would become awfully hard (and controversial) for refs to have to decide if the travel was "caused" by the foul.

It's difficult but that's what the rule is. I misapplied it during a camp this summer and the observer called me on it. I rushed a bit after my whistle and blew past the fact A1 traveled once we were in the continuous motion portion of the play. Thankfully, it didn't affect the outcome and the observer was happy I knew I'd screwed up.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It's difficult but that's what the rule is. I misapplied it during a camp this summer and the observer called me on it. I rushed a bit after my whistle and blew past the fact A1 traveled once we were in the continuous motion portion of the play. Thankfully, it didn't affect the outcome and the observer was happy I knew I'd screwed up.

Huh? You don't have to decide if the foul caused the travel, you have to determine if the foul preceded the travel. As Mark posted, either kind of travel negates the basket, and neither negates the fact the foul was on the shot.

(I do get Rut's point that whether the travel was truly caused by the contact can be a factor in determining *if* there was a foul, but that's a different from giving the victim of the foul a free pass on the travel and allowing the basket to count.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

(I do get Rut's point that whether the travel was truly caused by the contact can be a factor in determining *if* there was a foul, but that's a different from giving the victim of the foul a free pass on the travel and allowing the basket to count.)

This only matters if the basket counts. It does not matter IMO whether you have a shooting foul or not.

Peace

[wyo96]

I had never seen this until last year when I called this is V Boys game.

A1 drove the lane and was in the act of shooting, B1 grabbed his arm and caused A1 to "double clutch" and take an extra step before the lay up.

I needed to improve my mechanics as I waived off the shot, showed the travel signal, (wrong thing to do!!)then showed 2 fingers for 2 shots. I caused some confusion with my mechanics, but got the play right.

Had to explain to both coaches why we disallowed the bucket, but were shooting two shots.

Great learning moment at our next association meeting.
@99% of the time A1 misses the shot, so you never have this situation.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This only matters if the basket counts. It does not matter IMO whether you have a shooting foul or not.

Peace

Now I am confused -- are you disagreeing with Mark and Bob and saying that if the travel was caused by the foul you ignore the travel and let the basket count?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Now I am confused -- are you disagreeing with Mark and Bob and saying that if the travel was caused by the foul you ignore the travel and let the basket count?

Not sure why you are confused. Sounds like you are reading into too much of the discussion or what others are saying.

I am saying that you have to complete the process of the shooting motion. Once it is over, you cannot just throw the ball up and expect that should be apart of the shot and awarded points if the ball goes in the basket. But if you could not complete that process and shoot, then you will be awarded shots appropriately, just not a basket if that time has ended. Kind of like an airborne shooter that is fouled, chooses not to release the ball and has now come back to the floor with the ball. You do not give the shooter one or two more jumps to make a shot after being fouled.

Peace

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The definition of Continuous Motion speaks of fouled player being allowed to finish any and all legal footwork.. . .

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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

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."

I make no distinction between the two.