The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 11:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 401
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 12:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 3 hrs east of the western time zone
Posts: 892
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.....
__________________
Go ugly early, avoid the rush !!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 12:20pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 12:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 401
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 12:31pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
Food for thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiple Sports View Post
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.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 01:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 02:42pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 02:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: West Orange, NJ
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
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.
__________________
"Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's only to serve as a bad example."
"If Opportunity knocks and he's not home, Opportunity waits..."
"Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?" "Not until 4."
"The NCAA created this mess, so let them live with it." (JRutledge)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 03:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by bballref3966 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 03:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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....
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 03:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 03:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association

Last edited by Camron Rust; Fri Sep 04, 2015 at 03:48pm.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 03:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 03:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 04, 2015, 04:02pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Always Listen To bob ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Continuous Motion Toren Basketball 12 Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:55am
Continuous Motion? Reffing Rev. Basketball 26 Fri Dec 18, 2009 08:10am
Continuous Motion or Not Sven Basketball 3 Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:48am
Continuous Motion ronny mulkey Basketball 20 Sun Dec 28, 2003 03:01pm
continuous motion Ralph Stubenthal Basketball 1 Thu Nov 01, 2001 09:48pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1