Travel after shooting foul

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

By rule, the foul would be considered in the act of shooting, so Kawhi Leonard would entitled to free throws for the foul, but the score would be cancelled, because he travelled. However, officials in a real game would be more likely to conclude that the foul caused the travelling, so the shot would count, and Kawhi would shoot 1 free throw.

I've heard many times from veteran officials about the difference between the test and real life, and how they don't apply the rules in a real game in the manner that the test specifies as the correct way.

For the record, I do not agree with that mindset. I would cancel the score and award two shots, unless the foul directly contributed to the travel (the shooter was pushed and lost his balance, causing him to travel).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I've heard many times from veteran officials about the difference between the test and real life, and how they don't apply the rules in a real game in the manner that the test specifies as the correct way.

This situation would not be one of those times.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... unless the foul directly contributed to the travel (the shooter was pushed and lost his balance, causing him to travel).

And you would be stone cold wrong, on a written test, and in a real game.

Just how many extra steps are you going to give the fouled ball handler/shooter?

Continuation does not allow for extra steps. If the ball handler/shooter was in the act of shooting before the foul occurred, the foul does not cause the ball to become dead immediately, however, the travel violation does cause the ball to become dead immediately and no goal can be scored.

There is no such thing as a continuation rule that allows a dead ball delay in a travel violation.

In this case a dead ball going through the basket doesn't count as two points.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I've heard many times from veteran officials about the difference between the test and real life, and how they don't apply the rules in a real game in the manner that the test specifies as the correct way.

Don't you officiate real games? Don't you work real games with veteran officials? I'm confounded by your continual use of the phrase "real games". The play in question happened in a "real game", it's not a test question. And plays like this are going to happen in your real games eventually.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

For the record, I do not agree with that mindset. I would cancel the score and award two shots, unless the foul directly contributed to the travel (the shooter was pushed and lost his balance, causing him to travel).

So A1 jumps for a shot, B1 swipes down and hits both of A1's arms, A1 returns to the court landing on both feet, then A1 releases the ball and it goes in the basket. You're counting that basket because the foul caused the travel?

DO NOT COMPLICATE THINGS: If it is obvious, cancel the basket and award 2 free throws. If you have to split hairs or need replay to detect the travel, count the basket and award 1 free throw.

Why can't it be as simple as that?

[ilyazhito]

I am reporting what other people have said amongst themselves and told me. That does not mean that I support what is being said. I would officiate a game calling the plays the same way that they are supposed to be called per the rulebook and casebook/ Approved Rulings. If obvious that a foul and travel, I enforce both (award free throws and take away the score). If not, I count the goal, and ignore the maybe-travel while awarding one free throw.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I am reporting what other people have said amongst themselves and told me. That does not mean that I support what is being said.

Well not sure what others that are not in this discussion have to do with this topic brought up by a specific individual? It does not matter to many of us what someone in your little area might have done if you clearly do not agree with that position. I say that because I personally have never heard anyone make such a suggestion. It does not mean there are not people that feel that way, but it has nothing to do with the specific issue we are talking about here. People have all kinds of ideas about stuff that I would never share here.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I would officiate a game calling the plays the same way that they are supposed to be called per the rulebook and casebook/ Approved Rulings. If obvious that a foul and travel, I enforce both (award free throws and take away the score). If not, I count the goal, and ignore the maybe-travel while awarding one free throw.

That is where you should have left it. It does not help us or anyone bringing up unrelated people to the discussion when those people cannot speak for themselves. We trust your opinion enough as it is.

Peace

[bucky]

I recall the play quite vividly and discussed it with my dad. We rewound it and watched in slo mo of course. This happens most frequently, IMO, in the NBA. I never understand why the officials do not even bother to look at each other with some doubt. They just score it and nobody says a word, not even the defense. Sure, if it is not obvious I can understand but many times it is obvious. I have canceled a basket in this situation maybe 5 times in my career, usually only at the lower levels. Counting rec leagues, maybe 100 times, lol.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

If obvious that a foul and travel, I enforce both (award free throws and take away the score). If not, I count the goal, and ignore the maybe-travel while awarding one free throw.

But that's not what you said.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I would cancel the score and award two shots, unless the foul directly contributed to the travel (the shooter was pushed and lost his balance, causing him to travel).

Nothing about a "maybe travel" in your earlier post.

"Unless the foul directly contributed to the travel".

Travel, not a "maybe travel".

Make up your mind.

Words do matter.

And they can come back to haunt you.

[ilyazhito]

Raymond's comments did change my perspective. Let's allow someone else to step into this discussion.

[Valley Man]

If you know the player has traveled after the foul, you must cancel the goal and shoot 2. Plain and simple. I really hope your "wordiness" is only in typed form. Round about logic on the floor in conversation with certain coaches about a call will cook your goose!!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

If you know the player has traveled after the foul, you must cancel the goal and shoot 2. Plain and simple.

Well said. As simple as do, re, me. As easy as one, two, three.

Originally Posted by Valley Man

Round about logic on the floor in conversation with certain coaches about a call will cook your goose!!

As will calls that do not conform with the rules, especially regarding high profile situations involving counting or not counting baskets.

Now everybody just sit back and enjoy some classic Jackson 5 from 1970. If you're of a certain age, you better know what song this is before you click, or you should be ashamed of yourself.

https://youtu.be/ho7796-au8U