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?

[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....

[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.

[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.