Airborn Shooter

[paxsonref]

again, continuous motion gives the player the right to get off a shot, as I picture it, the player did not release that shot until after they regained control from what was essentially a fumble, maybe I'm picturing the play completely different than the rest of you, but i see it more of ball knocked loose than an actual attempt

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by paxsonref
again, continuous motion gives the player the right to get off a shot, as I picture it, the player did not release that shot until after they regained control from what was essentially a fumble, maybe I'm picturing the play completely different than the rest of you, but i see it more of ball knocked loose than an actual attempt

You can't have continuous motion if you DON'T have a shot. That's the rules!

If you think that it's a ball knocked loose instead of an attempt(try), then the ball and the play is dead IMMEDIATELY when the foul occurs.

[paxsonref]

sure you can have continuous motion without a shot. . .If the foul prevents the release of the ball on a shot attempt a player can still shoot free throws even though the shot never technically got off

Sect 40 Art 2 for rules reference

"It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand as a foul could prevent the release of the ball"


[Edited by paxsonref on Jan 28th, 2005 at 03:30 PM]

[Maverick]

First, I would also contend that the first time the player lost control of the ball it isn't a try. According to 4-40-2 (in part),

"A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for a goal."

I don't think a foul causing you to lose control of the ball constitues throwing for a goal. Then I would go to 4-11-1 which states that

"Continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight."

There is definitely a foul by the defense, the player has definitely started the habitual throwing movement and I would argue that "the ball clearly in flight" would mean for the try, not just losing control of the ball itself. Finally, 4-11-2 says

"If an opponent fouls after the player has started a try for goal, he/she is 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. These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight."

Thus, the player is allowed to complete the customary arm movement. Just because the defender disrupted that movement doesn't mean that the player can't still complete the movement. The middle part of 4-11-2 doesn't apply because our player wasn't pivoting or stepping when fouled. Thus, bucket is good. One shot.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Wow!! What other rules do you disregard because the player made such a great move? Travelling? Carrying? Does your assignor know you're writing your own rule book as you go?

Hey stop yourself Rainmaker I'm talking about this play only. There's something missing here. What's described a dislodged ball while airborne (we are assuming that the ball is "loose") and while still airborne somehow getting control and while still airborne somehow getting a shot off. I think not. What I'm saying is that it didn't happen as described. Get on a two foot stool jump off, drop a ball try to control it and shoot before you hit the ground. If you can do that I'll bake you some cookies.

I would also argue that the crew would be better off with the wrong call rather than going with an inadvertant whistle. Kid obviously hacked no foul, no shooting two or shooting one. I'd rather be shooting two and be wrong or shooting one and be wrong. I can live with being wrong we play on and go from there. Harder to explain an inadvertant whistle in this case. JMO

PS My assignor's there are half dozen like the job that I do.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by paxsonref
sure you can have continuous motion without a shot. . .

Say what?

Do you own a rule book?

Rule 4-11-1- "CONTINUOUS MOTION APPLIES TO A TRY OR TAP FOR FIELD GOALS AND FREE THROWS...".

Take a look at R4-11-2- which also talks about continuous motion- "These privileges are granted ONLY when the usual throwing motion has started BEFORE the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight".

Lah me. You keep making statements that are directly contradictory to the written rules.

[paxsonref]

Thanks Mav, did all the work for me!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by paxsonref
sure you can have continuous motion without a shot. . .If the foul prevents the release of the ball on a shot attempt a player can still shoot free throws even though the shot never technically got off

Sect 40 Art 2 for rules reference

"It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand as a foul could prevent the release of the ball"

You're contradicting yourself now. The rule that you cited is referring to continuous motion after a foul that occurs ON a shot.

[Maverick]

I think paxsonref has the right idea but the wrong terminology. You can't have "Continuous Motion" unless a shot is released. However, you can still shoot two free throws for a foul on a shot even if the ball doesn't actually leave the shooter's hands.

[Maverick]

The rule paxson ref doesn't deal with continuous motion. He cited Rule 4-40-2 which talks about "Shooting, Try, Tap." Continuous motion is 4-11.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick
First, I would also contend that the first time the player lost control of the ball it isn't a try. According to 4-40-2 (in part),

"A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for a goal."

I don't think a foul causing you to lose control of the ball constitues throwing for a goal.

Hold it right there. You just described a common foul above, as per R4-19-2. If you have a common foul, then the ball is dead immediately, as per rule 6-7-7. If the ball is dead, howinthehell can you now have a shooting foul AFTER the ball became dead?

[paxsonref]

yeah ive never been good with all those big words like terminology

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by paxsonref
yeah ive never been good with all those big words like terminology

Or rules either.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by gordon30307

Hey stop yourself Rainmaker I'm talking about this play only. There's something missing here. What's described a dislodged ball while airborne (we are assuming that the ball is "loose") and while still airborne somehow getting control and while still airborne somehow getting a shot off. I think not. What I'm saying is that it didn't happen as described.

Okay, fine. Next time say that, instead of saying you won't call a play by the book becuase it was such a great feat.

Originally posted by gordon30307
PS My assignor's there are half dozen like the job that I do.

I have no idea what this means.

[blindzebra]

4-40-2 The last line says," It is not essential that the ball leaves the player's hand as the foul could prevent release.

It can also cause the shooter to lose control.

4-40-6 A tap shall be considered the same as a try for goal.

You already said, you would not allow a second tap.