Continuous Motion/Traveling

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Does the traveling violation fall under the parameter of “the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball”?

In other words, does the traveling cancel any benefit of continuous motion that the shooter would receive, i.e. free throws?

That question seems contradictory -- it contains two different concepts.

The travelling DOES negate the continuous motion -- any basket cannot count; there cannot be an "and-1" on the play.

The travelling DOES NOT negate the fact that the foul occurred during a shooting motion. Award two FTs.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That question seems contradictory -- it contains two different concepts.

The travelling DOES negate the continuous motion -- any basket cannot count; there cannot be an "and-1" on the play.

The travelling DOES NOT negate the fact that the foul occurred during a shooting motion. Award two FTs.

i agree with number 1. if there is a travel there cannot be a goal. i dont agree so much with the second point. i think the issue here is whether the player who travels after contact was ever in the act of shooting. Just bringing the ball up could be a shot or pass. i look at the entire play to see what happens. im aware that the foul could prevent shot etc...i dont always make the determination of "in the act" at the moment of contact because at times i cant be sure.

i will error on the side of giving 2 shots but there's an argument that the player who does not release the ball within proper foot movements is NOT in the act....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

i agree with number 1. if there is a travel there cannot be a goal. i dont agree so much with the second point. i think the issue here is whether the player who travels after contact was ever in the act of shooting. Just bringing the ball up could be a shot or pass. i look at the entire play to see what happens. im aware that the foul could prevent shot etc...i dont always make the determination of "in the act" at the moment of contact because at times i cant be sure.

i will error on the side of giving 2 shots but there's an argument that the player who does not release the ball within proper foot movements is NOT in the act....

A basic assumption of this whole thread is that the player was in the act of shooting. If he wasn't in the act of shooting when he was fouled, then the ball is immediately dead and the "travel" never happened, much less any possibility of an "and-1".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A basic assumption of this whole thread is that the player was in the act of shooting. If he wasn't in the act of shooting when he was fouled, then the ball is immediately dead and the "travel" never happened, much less any possibility of an "and-1".

Exactly!

If you deem, at the time of the foul, the player was in the act of shooting, it doesn't really matter what happens next. The player was still fouled in the act of shooting and the foul will be charged and penalized accordingly. Not being able to successfully (legally) complete the try doesn't change the fact that the player was in the act of shooting when fouled. Continuous motion only delays the dead ball in such cases until the try ends (shot missed), the ball otherwise becomes dead (travel), etc. A travel causes the ball to become dead immediately. If the ball becomes dead before it goes in the basket, it can't be counted. But, again, the player was in the act of shooting when the foul occurred, so they player will be awarded 2 shots.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A basic assumption of this whole thread is that the player was in the act of shooting. If he wasn't in the act of shooting when he was fouled, then the ball is immediately dead and the "travel" never happened, much less any possibility of an "and-1".

my point is that there are many times that we dont know if the foul was in the act until we see what happens next. Assume im dribbling from wing down middle of paint and Camron is wide open in corner for three. i begin to raise ball, then contact. At that moment you dont know if im going to shoot the layup or pass to Camron. contact was minimal and i pass the ball to Cameron never looking at goal. i would not award 2 shots because even though i could have been in the act, the rest of the playh showed i wasnt intending to shoot.

in this case there is contact. is the player shooting at that moment? he isnt releasing the ball so we have to continue watching. he takes two more steps and then throws it up. clearly beyond legal foot movements. that tells me he wasnt shooting at time of foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

my point is that there are many times that we dont know if the foul was in the act until we see what happens next. Assume im dribbling from wing down middle of paint and Camron is wide open in corner for three. i begin to raise ball, then contact. At that moment you dont know if im going to shoot the layup or pass to Camron. contact was minimal and i pass the ball to Cameron never looking at goal. i would not award 2 shots because even though i could have been in the act, the rest of the playh showed i wasnt intending to shoot.

in this case there is contact. is the player shooting at that moment? he isnt releasing the ball so we have to continue watching. he takes two more steps and then throws it up. clearly beyond legal foot movements. that tells me he wasnt shooting at time of foul.

There shouldn't be "many times" that this happens. In fact, we should make that decision at the time of the foul every time.

And, FED has a case where a foul while shooting followed by a pass is still a foul while shooting.

Sometimes we need to officiate.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED has a case where a foul while shooting followed by a pass is still a foul while shooting.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I would love to see this citation.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I would love to see this citation.

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..

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

there shouldn't be "many times" that this happens. In fact, we should make that decision at the time of the foul every time.

And, fed has a case where a foul while shooting followed by a pass is still a foul while shooting.

Sometimes we need to officiate.

thank you!

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There shouldn't be "many times" that this happens. In fact, we should make that decision at the time of the foul every time.

And, FED has a case where a foul while shooting followed by a pass is still a foul while shooting.

Sometimes we need to officiate.

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...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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...

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.

[crosscountry55]

Actually, while I would agree what you put in red is a false generalization, I don't think it's that far from the truth.

In the last year I've been trying to pay closer attention to when continuous motion begins, probably because I know that NCAAM officials have a tougher standard these days (what with how the "gather" and "upward motion" are determined and all). Seems like every time I make a call in the gray area and put the ball out of bounds, the critique I get is that he was in the act of shooting and that I should have put him on the line. So I would tend to agree that the general consensus is, "if it's even remotely close, err on the side of continuous motion."

[SNIPERBBB]

In Ohio, they want us to say that if the player has gathered the ball, it is the beginning of the habitual motion of a shot.