Continuous Motion/Traveling

[bballref3966]

A1 begins his continuous motion on a drive to the basket and is fouled. Before releasing the ball, A1 commits a traveling violation. The ball enters the goal.

Would the traveling violation cause continuous motion principles to cease, thus meaning A1 is not awarded any free throws (unless Team A is in the bonus)? Or would A1 be given two shots?

[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.....

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.