Continuous Motion/Traveling
 

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?

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.....

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

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?

Food for thought.
 

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.

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

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

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".)

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."

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.

Except that isn't always enough. What if they gather the ball in the backcourt, 75 feet from the basket? Or they're heading towards the the corner and not the basket in order make a bounce pass to a teammate cutting along the endline?

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.)

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

Peace

I called it!
 

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.

That just isn't true all the time

Snipe.....

Be careful with the term "gather"......you could argue that a very talented player with large hands on a dribble drive to the basket could "gather" the ball as he puts his hand under the ball as he is going to the basket...Does that gather start his upward motion ? Is that part of his continuous motion ????

Just some food for thought......

I am still going to use the term. And it is just a point of demarcation. It does not mean it is an absolute or that other things cannot be done. But if it looks like a shot, it is a shot. If it looks like a pass or something else, it is a pass. The bottom line is that people wave off too many shots because they did not leave the floor. I am going to continue to encourage people to use the "gather" as a marking line to the call. Your experience will help out the rest.

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?

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

We use the term "gathering" as well. But is "gathering" the equivalent of "end of dribble?" If so, why don't we just use "end of dribble" as the point of demarcation. Or, is there a difference between the two that has not been explained to us by NFHS?

Maybe not, but it doesn't matter.

Probably.

The term is more descriptive. If you say "end of dribble" people might consider a point before the gather as just that, the end of the dribble. Heck we have people that cannot even agree on when a pivot foot is established when we call or review a traveling play. So the gather is a little more clear as to when that part starts. The NCAA uses "upward motion" but even that can be associated with the gather as usually you have to gather a ball while on your way up to shoot a basketball. Honestly, it is mostly about he execution of the individual, but that is why we get paid the big bucks to make these decisions.

Peace

It's not one of my favorite interpretations and directives, and I argue against it every time it comes up but this LCD thinking is hard to overcome.

If it's obvious that a player is doing anything other than shooting, it won't be a shot.

It will not be explained to you by the NFHS because there is no such word in the NFHS terminology.

That said, the way people often use it is not exactly the same as "end of dribble". Many use it such that it refers to a point that is typically after the end of the dribble...when the ball is secured in two hands....and declare that only at that time is the player actually holding the ball.

However, there are a few holes in the way it is often used when you try to reconcile it with the rules.


Player control , as everyone knows, is defined only as holding or dribbling the ball.

Therefore, unless the player loses control of the ball, the player is, by definition, is either holding the ball or dribbling the ball.

Thus, when the dribble ends and player control isn't lost a player is, by definition, holding the ball. Causing it to come to rest in one or both hands is essentially defined to be catching/holding the ball.


If you don't believe that, just answer this (ignoring a fumble/muff)....

If a player has ended the dribble but has not yet "gathered" the ball, what is the status of player control? Does player control continue through the time between the end of the dribble to the time the player has "gathered" the ball?


If the dribble has ended and they are not holding the ball, then you are saying they don't have player control and they are not subject to the rules regarding player control. That implies the player's team can not be granted a timeout and they they can't commit a PC foul. Has you ever seen a player in such a case commit a foul and it not be a PC foul or ever consider the status of the ball that is being gathered relative to a timeout request? Of course not.


Unless the NFHS wants to introduce third state of player control, that is all there is and the rest of the rules apply accordingly.

The term can, however, be useful in determining whether the player is in the act of shooting. It is a status, even if unofficial, that usually demarcates the latest point at which the act of shooting likely begins.

Could it be said then that "gathering" means the player not only has secured control of the ball but also has gathered his movement/momentum in a way that an official should be able to accurately judge him/her to be in the act of shooting?

Players IMO usually do not shoot the ball or start the shooting motion without both hands on the ball at some point. Even on a layup usually starts with both hands on the ball after a dribble. Maybe not every single time, but most of the time for sure.

Peace