Personal Or Technical ???

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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 ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[bucky]

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

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).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not even sure when that came part of the discussion.

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Arriving late to the party.