Continous Motion

[Zoochy]

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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?

[deecee]

I've always thought in HS we didn't award FT's as much as we should have.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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".

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by deecee

I've always thought in HS we didn't award FT's as much as we should have.

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

My association clinicians have been saying this for years... if in doubt, give 'em the free throws.

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

[frezer11]

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.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

[SC Official]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by frezer11

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.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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)