The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2020, 11:12am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 18,444
Continuous Motion ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyu2 View Post
And if the try went in, it would count.
If the ball was released before the foul.

I don't think that continuous motion (before the ball is released) applies to a foul by the offense, I believe that the ball becomes dead immediately.

I'm not sure, would like some confirmation.
__________________
"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." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Mar 28, 2020 at 12:01pm.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2020, 02:02pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
If the ball was released before the foul.

I don't think that continuous motion (before the ball is released) applies to a foul by the offense, I believe that the ball becomes dead immediately.

I'm not sure, would like some confirmation.
You been officiating too long to not know that rule. That means you've been calling it wrong for 30 or 40 years.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2020, 03:00pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 18,444
When Pigs Fly ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
You been officiating too long to not know that rule. That means you've been calling it wrong for 30 or 40 years.
I'm just hedging my bets ("Don't think", "I believe").

The situation is, after all, extremely rare, a ball handler with player control and in that act of shooting (airborne shooter), committing an intentional, flagrant, or technical foul.

Don't see those every day. Never observed one in forty years. Probably die before I see my first.



After release, count the basket.

Before the release, don't count the basket.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
__________________
"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." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Mar 28, 2020 at 03:05pm.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2020, 03:37pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
I'm just hedging my bets ("Don't think", "I believe").



The situation is, after all, extremely rare, a ball handler with player control and in that act of shooting (airborne shooter), committing an intentional, flagrant, or technical foul.



Don't see those every day. Never observed one in forty years. Probably die before I see my first.







After release, count the basket.



Before the release, don't count the basket.



That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
If you don't know the rules of continuous motion you need to get back in the rulebook

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2020, 03:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
I'm just hedging my bets ("Don't think", "I believe").

The situation is, after all, extremely rare, a ball handler with player control and in that act of shooting (airborne shooter), committing an intentional, flagrant, or technical foul.

Don't see those every day. Never observed one in forty years. Probably die before I see my first.



After release, count the basket.


Before the release, don't count the basket.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Hint: See the definition of an airborne shooter.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2020, 05:09pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 18,444
Moot Points ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyu2 View Post
... definition of an airborne shooter.
An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.

So in the casebook play it is automatically assumed that the ball has been released (definition of airborne shooter), so the basket will count. My scenario of the ball not being released was a moot point.

I learned that an airborne shooter doesn't begin with the shooter becoming airborne, but only begins when the shot is released by an "airborne shooter" (generic Funk & Wagnalls definition)

Thanks billyu2.

Since the ball has been released in the casebook play, continuous motion is also a moot point (the ball is clearly in flight), but let's explore it anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
... continuous motion ...
The ball becomes dead, or remains dead when a foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs. Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when (a foul) occurs by any opponent of a player who has started a try or tap for goal (is in the act of shooting) before the foul occurred, provided time did not expire before the ball was in flight. The trying motion must be continuous and begins after the ball comes to rest in the player’s hand(s) on a try or touches the hand(s) on a tap, and is completed when the ball is clearly in flight. The trying motion may include arm, foot or body movements used by the player when throwing the ball at his/her basket.

Unless I'm missing something (so what else is new?), the ball becomes dead with a foul by the offense, and as I said, continuous motion wouldn't apply (even if the foul was before the release, which it wasn't).
__________________
"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." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Mar 29, 2020 at 10:59am.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2020, 06:24pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.



So in the casebook play it is automatically assumed that the ball has been released (definition of airborne shooter), so the basket will count. My scenario of the ball not being released was a moot point.



I learned that an airborne shooter doesn't begin with the shooter becoming airborne, but only begins when the shot is released by an "airborne shooter" (generic Funk & Wagnalls definition)



Thanks billyu2.



Since the ball has been released in the casebook play, continuous motion is also a moot point, but let's explore it anyway (the ball is clearly in flight).







The ball becomes dead, or remains dead when a foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs. Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when (a foul) occurs by any opponent of a player who has started a try or tap for goal (is in the act of shooting) before the foul occurred, provided time did not expire before the ball was in flight. The trying motion must be continuous and begins after the ball comes to rest in the player’s hand(s) on a try or touches the hand(s) on a tap, and is completed when the ball is clearly in flight. The trying motion may include arm, foot or body movements used by the player when throwing the ball at his/her basket.



Unless I'm missing something (so what else is new?), the ball becomes dead with a foul by the offense, and as I said, continuous motion wouldn't apply (even if the foul was before the release, which it wasn't).
You said you think and you believe and that you were hedging your bets. A veteran should not have to hedge their bets about the definition of continuous motion, especially a veteran of this forum.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 29, 2020, 08:43am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 18,444
Little Bird ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
You said you think and you believe and that you were hedging your bets. A veteran should not have to hedge their bets about the definition of continuous motion ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
The situation is, after all, extremely rare, a ball handler with player control and in that act of shooting (airborne shooter), committing an intentional, flagrant, or technical foul.
... and it's in a thread in which words in a dictionary that we use in common everyday language don't mean the same as they do in the rulebook. Only after breaking the situation down to two components, and with the help of billyu2, did I discover that I was mistaken about the definition of an airborne shooter (mine was too generic and expansive). I was actually not mistaken about continuous motion (never thought I was, I was just concerned about its impact on the entirety of the situation).

It turns out that the little bird in my head telling me that I shouldn't put my Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval on my full interpretation was correct (my conclusions turned out to be correct, the way I got there was not). Really glad that I didn't bet my house on my full interpretation.

__________________
"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." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Mar 29, 2020 at 10:54am.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 29, 2020, 02:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 998
I tried to keep up with the thread but fear I have failed. It sounds as if there was a question regarding continuous motion (CM). CM, according to the NFHS definition, only applies when there is a foul on the defense, not the offense. Wasn't the original premise that the discussion was surrounding a foul on the offense? And therefore, CM would not be relevant?

(Isn't this what Raymond stated?)

So, before release, do not count the basket. After the release do not count the basket. Correct?
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 29, 2020, 02:54pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Wasn't the original premise that the discussion was surrounding a foul on the offense? And therefore, CM would not be relevant?

(Isn't this what Raymond stated?)

So, before release, do not count the basket. After the release do not count the basket. Correct?
I am not even sure when that came part of the discussion. This was about whether we can give a flagrant intentional or flagrant technical. Then, as usual, Billy starts arguing with himself, posting over and over things that were not relevant to the original conversation, adding more elements to the play or situation that was not discussed until he brought it up. So if you are confused, we are all confused.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 29, 2020, 03:58pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 18,444
Airborne Shooter ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Wasn't the original premise that the discussion was surrounding a foul on the offense? And therefore, CM would not be relevant?
Continuous motion should never have come into this caseplay at all, not because the foul was by the offense, but because the ball had already been released (caseplay stated airborne shooter and by definition an airborne shooter has already released the ball (thanks billyu2)), thus no continuous motion (continuous motion ends when the ball is clearly in flight).

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
I am not even sure when that came part of the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyu2 View Post
And if the try went in, it would count.
So we all know who to blame, here's where it all began to deteriorate and fall apart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
If the ball was released before the foul.
Yep, we all know who to blame, BillyMac, because he didn't fully know the rulebook definition of an airborne shooter.

Sure, BillyMac is probably both extremely handsome and very intelligent, but he really needs to work on his Rule 4 definitions.
__________________
"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." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Mar 30, 2020 at 01:47pm.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 30, 2020, 04:01pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,778
Arriving late to the party.

As I see it there are two different situations that can occur:


Play 1: A1 deliberately throws a Live Ball at B1 and the: a) Ball hits B1 or b) Ball does not hit B1.

Play 2: A1, while holding a Live Ball, uses the Ball to deliberately push B1.


Play 1, in both (a) and (b), is easy to adjudicate: A1 has committed a Technical Foul (TF) for Unsportsmanlike Conduct. It is my opinion that A1's actions meet the definition of a Flagrant Foul (FF). I consider A1's actions no different from swinging a closed fist at B1, whether A1 does or does not make contact with B1, and therefore is a Flagrant Technical Foul (FTF).


Regarding Play 2, I guarantee that if one does an Advanced Search of the Basketball Forum he/she will find that I have been on record numerous times that I consider this a Player Control Foul (PCF). Having said that...

A1) I have seen my share of Third World Plays during my 46 years of officiating but Play 2 is one of them that I have not seen (at least I do not remember seeing).

A2) I used the word "deliberately" in my description of Play 2 because as I have read through this Thread I have decided to re-evaluate my thinking concerning Play 2. I no longer consider this to be a PCF by A1, in fact I do not consider this a PF by A1.

A3) Why have I changed my RULING? A1 is holding a Live Ball and B1 attempts to knock the Ball out of A1's hands and does so by slapping A1's hand while it is in contact with the Ball. By Rule, this is not a PF by B1 because A1's hand is considered to be the Ball and not part of A1's body. Therefore, A1 pushing B1 with the Ball cannot be a PF by A1; it has to be a TF for Unsportsmanlike Conduct and depending upon the severity of A1's push or if B1 retaliates it could be an ITF or a FTF.


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
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Ump. Assn.
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 30, 2020, 04:11pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post

Regarding Play 2, I guarantee that if one does an Advanced Search of the Basketball Forum he/she will find that I have been on record numerous times that I consider this a Player Control Foul (PCF). Having said that...

A1) I have seen my share of Third World Plays during my 46 years of officiating but Play 2 is one of them that I have not seen (at least I do not remember seeing).

A2) I used the word "deliberately" in my description of Play 2 because as I have read through this Thread I have decided to re-evaluate my thinking concerning Play 2. I no longer consider this to be a PCF by A1, in fact I do not consider this a PF by A1.
I have actually seen this happen on some level, rather early in my career. I saw a player hit a player with the ball making a normal movement and the ball is what hit the player in the face. We did not call anything because the ball handler was not trying to hit the player in the face at all. It was very incidental. The coach wanted us to call a foul, but we did not see it that way unless he was trying to hit the opponent. And that would have only been a Technical foul in our mind.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 30, 2020, 04:12pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 18,444
Better Never Than Late ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
Arriving late to the party.
__________________
"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." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 31, 2020, 09:34am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 18,444
Or It Could Happen In One's First Game ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
I saw a player hit a player with the ball making a normal movement and the ball is what hit the player in the face. We did not call anything because the ball handler was not trying to hit the player in the face at all. It was very incidental. The coach wanted us to call a foul, but we did not see it that way unless he was trying to hit the opponent.
One officiates long enough and one can see or hear about some crazy things.

These are the stories that veteran officials orally pass down to young'uns around a blazing campfire.
__________________
"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." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
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
Personal Foul, then Technical Foul jdw3018 Basketball 7 Sat Dec 02, 2006 05:35am
Itentional Foul - Personal or Technical? RunninRef Basketball 8 Sun Feb 06, 2005 03:31pm
[NF] Technical & personal "shooting" foul administration LukeZ Basketball 4 Tue Dec 02, 2003 06:23am
Personal Fouls/Technical fouls Coach T Basketball 6 Thu Jan 30, 2003 09:35am
Technical or Personal Bchill24 Basketball 4 Sun Nov 10, 2002 12:32am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1