The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 04, 2019, 10:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 702
Continous Motion

I assume the rules are different for NCAAM, NCAAW, and NFHS. I see a lot in the College game where I would consider the player to be in 'The Act of Shooting' using NFHS rules
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 12:43am
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
I assume the rules are different for NCAAM, NCAAW, and NFHS. I see a lot in the College game where I would consider the player to be in 'The Act of Shooting' using NFHS rules

The definition of Continous Motion in all three codes is the same, word for word.

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
Ohio High School Athletic Association
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 09:13am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
I assume the rules are different for NCAAM, NCAAW, and NFHS. I see a lot in the College game where I would consider the player to be in 'The Act of Shooting' using NFHS rules
And it is pretty much the same in the NBA, just with different verbiage.

I see way more errors on continuous motion rulings in HS than I do in college.

What may be different, at least in NCAA-Men's, is when the try is ruled to begin. In NCAA-Men's, we're looking for upward motion.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 09:33am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,742
In The Act ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
I see way more errors on continuous motion rulings in HS than I do in college.
We've discussed this on our local board over the past few years. Our local interpreter and our state interpreter believe that many of us are erring by not ruling "in the act" on many plays and seem to rule, in error, "no shot" in said situations.
__________________
John 3:16 "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."

Last edited by BillyMac; Tue Mar 05, 2019 at 02:22pm.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 09:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
I see way more errors on continuous motion rulings in HS than I do in college.
In your HS observations, would you say there is a greater tendency to negate continuous motion when it should have been granted, or to grant it when it should not have been? Or are the errors equally distributed on both sides of the equation?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 10:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,499
I've always thought in HS we didn't award FT's as much as we should have.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 10:17am
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
I've always thought in HS we didn't award FT's as much as we should have.
My association clinicians have been saying this for years... if in doubt, give 'em the free throws.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 11:01am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 View Post
In your HS observations, would you say there is a greater tendency to negate continuous motion when it should have been granted, or to grant it when it should not have been? Or are the errors equally distributed on both sides of the equation?
Not awarding 2 shots when we should.

For some reason, a lot of officials seem to be emphatic about putting fouls "on the floor".
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 11:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
I've always thought in HS we didn't award FT's as much as we should have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp View Post
My association clinicians have been saying this for years... if in doubt, give 'em the free throws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
For some reason, a lot of officials seem to be emphatic about putting fouls "on the floor".
I agree with all of this and have observed the same. If I'm in any doubt, I award FTs. A clinician once asked me, in a marginal case, when a player was driving, why I didn't award FTs. He asked, "Do you think he wasn't trying to go and score? What else would he possibly be doing?" I've approached it that way ever since.

Trickiest situation for me is when a player passes off at the last second. I have to determine if the contact/foul forced the ball handler to change his mind on going to basket, or if the pass was intended from the beginning. If I think the ball handler bailed on the shot because of the contact, I'm going to award FTs, and then inevitably the opposing coach will say, "but he was passing!" But hey, I get paid to make judgments.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 12:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55;1030886 A clinician once asked me, in a marginal case, when a player was driving, why I didn't award FTs. He asked, "Do you think he [I
wasn't[/I] trying to go and score? What else would he possibly be doing?" I've approached it that way ever since.
I like this. And while I've always taken this approach, I hadn't worded it like this to others when having the discussion. I think I'll use this thought process moving forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 View Post
Trickiest situation for me is when a player passes off at the last second. I have to determine if the contact/foul forced the ball handler to change his mind on going to basket, or if the pass was intended from the beginning. If I think the ball handler bailed on the shot because of the contact, I'm going to award FTs, and then inevitably the opposing coach will say, "but he was passing!" But hey, I get paid to make judgments.
This is pretty tough. Unless it's pretty obvious that the ball handler basically just tried to shove the ball to his teammate after being fouled, I think I'm going with the pass most of the time, it is really difficult to judge intent over action
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 12:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,526
While I agree that too often we incorrectly don't award FTs, if the ball handler passes it off after the contact I'm not giving him the act of shooting.

"On a pass" never gets me any grief from the offensive player's coach.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 01:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by frezer11 View Post
I like this. And while I've always taken this approach, I hadn't worded it like this to others when having the discussion. I think I'll use this thought process moving forward.



This is pretty tough. Unless it's pretty obvious that the ball handler basically just tried to shove the ball to his teammate after being fouled, I think I'm going with the pass most of the time, it is really difficult to judge intent over action
I'm doing the same (giving shots). We have to judge intent on almost every shooting foul situation. If they're fouled while I think they're trying to shoot, I'm giving 2 shots. What happens after that is irrelevant. The foul stopped a shooter. The shooter should not be required to guess if we are going to call it or not. They have to make the best decision they can after being fouled and should not be penalized for looking for an alternative.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 02:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
And it is pretty much the same in the NBA, just with different verbiage.

I see way more errors on continuous motion rulings in HS than I do in college.

What may be different, at least in NCAA-Men's, is when the try is ruled to begin. In NCAA-Men's, we're looking for upward motion.
Maybe the question I should have asked. When does the Try begin?
As it was mentioned in other posts. If the player is driving to basket and has ended the dribble by gathering the ball, then s/he is allowed continuous motion for the Act of Shooting. Rule 4-11 & Fundamental 17. As I look at film of my games, I am still at fault of stating that the player WAS NOT shooting. But, I feel I am getting better in awarding the player Free-Throws. (Even though Coaches don't agree)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 02:15pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,742
Habitual Throwing Movement ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
When does the Try begin?
4-11: ... begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try ... permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball ... the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight.
__________________
John 3:16 "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."
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 05, 2019, 02:36pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
And it is pretty much the same in the NBA, just with different verbiage.

I see way more errors on continuous motion rulings in HS than I do in college.

What may be different, at least in NCAA-Men's, is when the try is ruled to begin. In NCAA-Men's, we're looking for upward motion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
Maybe the question I should have asked. When does the Try begin?
As it was mentioned in other posts. If the player is driving to basket and has ended the dribble by gathering the ball, then s/he is allowed continuous motion for the Act of Shooting. Rule 4-11 & Fundamental 17. As I look at film of my games, I am still at fault of stating that the player WAS NOT shooting. But, I feel I am getting better in awarding the player Free-Throws. (Even though Coaches don't agree)
Here's the applicable rules citation for NCAA-Men's. For some reason it's in the case book instead the rule book.

Act of Shooting
A.R. 115.
A1 is dribbling the ball and attempts to turn the corner at the top of the key to drive down the lane. B1 fouls A1 as A1 picks up his dribble. A1 then steps with his right foot and then pushes off with his left foot before beginning to raise his arm(s) or hand(s) to release the ball for a layup. The try is successful.

RULING: The foul occurred before the act of shooting began. Therefore, the goal should not count. Charge B1 with a personal foul and shoot
appropriate free throws if Team A is in the bonus.

The language of 5-1.10, “The try starts when the player begins the motion
that normally precedes the release of the ball,” refers to the hand(s) or
arm(s) in preparing to release the ball on a try for goal. Examples of the act
of shooting motion include raising the ball with the hand(s) and or arm(s)
to shoot a layup or jump shot or the downward motion of the hand(s) or
arm(s) in completing a dunk or alley-oop play. This act of shooting motion
does not include picking up the dribble, catching (gathering) the ball, or
advancing on the court with one or both feet
.

(Rule 5-1.10 and 4-8.1)
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
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
Continous/Upward Motion JRutledge Basketball 31 Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:52am
Continous Motion (video request) Zoochy Basketball 0 Mon Jan 18, 2016 09:46pm
Continous motion (4.11) Live ball/Dead ball (6.7) Zoochy Basketball 1 Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:37pm
Man in motion Time2Ref Football 18 Mon Aug 13, 2007 01:31pm
Anyone second the motion?? cowbyfan1 Football 1 Mon Jul 14, 2003 08:25am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1