You are misapplying the NBA's travel rule to continuation. NBA allows 2 steps before travel and if the officials "allow" 3, it's more that they missed a travel and awarded a legal basket. The difference is what is allowed as a basketball move when it comes to continuation and what isn't.

Can you clarify, then, what is meant by a basketball move? I admit that my interpretation of continuation could use some more education on the topic. Also, I was avoiding the traveling difference. Lifting and replanting the pivot foot in NFHS is traveling. I have no idea what constitutes a travel in the NBA. What I do know, is when I used the word "continuation" in a middle school game to explain why I awarded free throws, I got a rebuke that this term doesn't exist in the fed rule book. This is correct. I still made the correct decision, in my view, but I will always say "in the act of shooting" from now on.

It is indeed a minor difference

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I find this tough to explain but if you think the player is making an attempt to score at the time they get fouled then they are allowed to "continue" that motion.

Say a player is going for a layup and gathers the ball and then steps. He then gets fouled. Do you allow him to finish his attempt to the basket? What if he stops and pirouettes on his pivot foot and then after a second or two puts up the shot?

Although one can argue that in both cases he is in the act of shooting, the reality is that only one of those will be called such, and is expect to be called as such and the other isn't.

Keep in mind high school officials also work other levels. So there are officials that have either been to other level training or have taken the time through video study or watching others to get better in this area. But again, high school officials are from the brand new official to the 40 year veteran.

Couple things that need to be stated. The NBA has a different rule for traveling which would allow a different allowances for when a pivot foot is established. That would make a difference. Secondly the rule still is basically the same as when you are fouled you are allowed to continue your normal motion. So if you have not traveled or not stopped what you were legally able to do (unless you dribble again) then that motion can continue. Where is the rule different? During the Finals Curry had a play where he was fouled and put up a shot and was given the shot. The only thing at issue was if he dribbled again which he did not and he was awarded the shots.

Nothing really to quibble over or have a major debate about, I just think it is clear to me that many think the rule is so different when it is not. Even your description does not take into account how a player in the NBA establishes their pivot foot. And the reality is that high school officials often do not award any shots if the shooter is not off the floor to elevated to shoot at the time of contact.

Peace

As a watcher of game , I think this is ultimately the issue: in my experience, HS referees (especially sub-varsity) are far less likely to judge that the shooting motion had started than NBA referees (or NCAA) - and are far less consistent on where the lines are.

No More "On The Floor" Please ...
 

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, and in Connecticut overall, this continues to be a major problem. To many high school officials "on the floor" indicates that the shooting hasn't started. We've got many girls, and a few boys, that shoot an old fashioned set shot from behind the three point line, with both feet "on the floor".

When training new officials I tell them 3 phrases that are to be eliminated from their vocabulary....."on the floor", "over the back" and "reaching in" and give them the correct reasoning and rules references for situations where these trite phrases may be invoked
.
Too bad these unsavory terms persist with some supposedly experienced officials.

You Don't Say ...
 

And the biggest one ,,,,,

$90 game fee vs $X00,000 salary.