Does Continuation Apply?

[Rich]

4-11-1:

Continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.

-------------

There is no way that going into a jump stop is after the "habitual throwing motion" has started.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Rich

4-11-1:

Continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.

-------------

There is no way that going into a jump stop is after the "habitual throwing motion" has started.

Rich:

Before you stand by your most recent statement I would suggest that you review the plays that I posted because legal foot work prior to the release of the shot does matter.

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rich:

Before you stand by your most recent statement I would suggest that you review the plays that I posted because legal foot work prior to the release of the shot does matter.

MTD, Sr.

The throwing motion has to start first. Legal footwork may matter to decide if the player travels but it means nothing, absolutely nothing, if the throwing motion hasn't started as to whether you say the foul was in act of shooting.

[deecee]

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by deecee

Deecee,

you always make me chuckle. thank you

[MD Longhorn]

Question for Mark.

In the OP, after the player jumps, is fouled, and lands ... that player can (had they not been fouled) immediately jump and shoot ... or they could conceivably wait a second or two, fake, and then shoot (and/or pass). Given your explanation that the entire motion, beginning before the foul, is "the act of shooting" ... if the player were to jump, get fouled, land, wait 2 seconds, and then shoot ... in your opinion, would this still be in the act of shooting?

What if said player went up, got fouled, landed ... and then heard the whistle and didn't do anything at all --- still in the act of shooting?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Question for Mark.

In the OP, after the player jumps, is fouled, and lands ... that player can (had they not been fouled) immediately jump and shoot ... or they could conceivably wait a second or two, fake, and then shoot (and/or pass). Given your explanation that the entire motion, beginning before the foul, is "the act of shooting" ... if the player were to jump, get fouled, land, wait 2 seconds, and then shoot ... in your opinion, would this still be in the act of shooting?

What if said player went up, got fouled, landed ... and then heard the whistle and didn't do anything at all --- still in the act of shooting?

YES DAMNIT. He's made his point very clearly. Put the kid on the line and shoot 2, or 3 if he's behind the arc.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Everyone who has taken the position that W4, in the original video, was not fouled in the act of shooting, has yet to make a ruling for any of the two (actually eight plays within two scenarios) plays that I have posted, are "in the act of shooting" fouls. The fouls in those the plays I have posted require the application of the same rules that I quoted in my first post in the thread with regard to the foul in the video.

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everyone who has taken the position that W4, in the original video, was not fouled in the act of shooting, has yet to make a ruling for any of the two (actually eight plays within two scenarios) plays that I have posted, are "in the act of shooting" fouls. The fouls in those the plays I have posted require the application of the same rules that I quoted in my first post in the thread with regard to the foul in the video.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

you are right that everyone but you and one other person believe w4 wasn't fouled in act of shooting. And you're right, we haven't read your 8 plays because it isn't necessary. Again, this isn't close.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Mark,

you are right that everyone but you and one other person believe w4 wasn't fouled in act of shooting. And you're right, we haven't read your 8 plays because it isn't necessary. Again, this isn't close.

Big Cat:

My experience as a rules interpreter and instructor tells me that when you tell me that you don't think it is necessary to study similar plays that you do not want to learn. Humor me, and study them, and tell the forum your rulings because I am very interested in your analysis.

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Big Cat:

My experience as a rules interpreter and instructor tells me that when you tell me that you don't think it is necessary to study similar plays that you do not want to learn. Humor me, and study them, and tell the forum your rulings because I am very interested in your analysis.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,
My experience tells me that you are ignoring the way the game has been played for years and taking a basic play…not in the act of shooting, and trying to plug it into rules and reaching an absurd result. This isn't a close play.

Old dogs can't learn new tricks. I can learn but i can't learn anything from what you are espousing on this thread.