Haven’t been around much this year so if one of my fellow association members, who hangout here, has posted this situation will someone please point me to it.


This situation, call, and subsequent action has caused a good bit of discussion in our association. Before I get into it I have to say that I was not there but I worked with one of the refs (the R in the game) a few nights later and I also work in the same office as our interpreter so I have heard the situation from two good sources.

As I understand it – Boy’s game, A1 goes up for a jump shot and while still in the air is hit on the arm hard enough to dislodge the ball from his hand. Play takes place in C’s area and he has a good view of it. C blows his whistle on the hit, fist goes up and the other arm goes up to signal two shots. “A1 is still in the air” and “before he lands” regains control of the ball, shoots and makes the basket. The 3 refs and the closest coach all agree that this is the situation. The furthest coach only disagreement was that he thought the signal was a jump ball. So the facts of the situation are not disputed.

The decision - Refs conference and award 2 points to A and give the ball to B who can run the baseline.

Any thoughts?

Thoughts? Yeah, I'm thinking how could they have been any more wrong than that?

If A1 is fouled on a shot he's going to the line whether the ball goes in or not. The way I read the play I have A1 going to the line for 2 (or 3) shots, the basket does not count.

If I were making the call count the basket and award a free throw for a possible three point play. What was the logic for awarding the basket and giving it to B? Was there a foul on the play or did they go with an inadvertent whistle?

Perhaps I'm missing something here.

If you aren't leaving something out than I don't understand why this caused so much discussion in your association. It's simple as you describe it. A foul on the shot and the shot went in. Count the bucket and shoot one. Are you sure you didn't leave part of the story out?

Z

I would think if the ball left his hand, a foul was called and the ball obviously did not have a chance to go in the basket, that the try had ended, and the ball would be dead, notwithstanding he caught it again. I'd disallow the basket, and award two free throws.

I'm with Frank.

The player is an airborne shooter until he comes to the ground, if he gets hit on the way up and loses the ball, he has every right to try and regain possesion of that ball and still make an attempt at a shot, provided he has not come back to the floor yet. As far as I'm concerned, he could have regained control, went behind his back, between his legs with the ball and tossed it without looking at the basket and he is going to get continuation on the play, again provided he did all this before his airborne shooter status ended.

Also, that C official needs to be patient enough to see the whole play and not show "2 shots" before the play is over, that only helped add to the confusion

I agree. Where is the preliminary signal? Fist.... and hold fist (be patient). <b> Then </b> give prelim before signaling two shots. Going too fast causes many problems - even more so on a double whistle.

Z

Well lessee....

- an airborne shooter is a player with both feet off the floor who has released the ball on a try. He remains an airborne shooter until 1 fot touches the floor.

- a try ends when (among other things) it is certain the ball aint going in or the ball becomes dead.

So in this case A1 goes up, is fouled, the ball pops free (is this a try?) then A1 while still in the air again controls the ball & shoots it. If you judge A1 did not release the ball on a try when it pops free then the play is dead right there - A1 lost control but not on a shot. (Agree?) If you judged A1 did release the ball on a try when it pops free then as soon as it's clear the ball aint going in the ball is dead - he doesn't get another shot at it.

Make sense?
This is clearly wrong in this play. Once it's certain the ball is not going in the try ends. The player remains an airborne shooter but his initial try has ended. If he's not fouled he can attempt another try, but not if he's fouled.

how many times have we given continuation on a shot where the ball is knocked loose, clearly out of possesion, regained, then shot and made. . . I am going to give the shooter the benefit, since if the foul caused the shot to be that woefully off that it is still in reach of the player, I would most likely rule that not as a shot, but just as losing the handle on the ball, and reward the kid for making an athletic play by being able to regain control and make an attempt, and if he isnt able to get the shot back up, makes it that much easier, then we just shoot 2

sorry airborne shooter may have been the wrong way to word it according to the rule book, but hopefully my point is made


[Edited by paxsonref on Jan 28th, 2005 at 11:34 AM]

No, you did make your point which is why I tried to be more precise in my post.

Continuous motion as defined only applies until the ball is clearly in flight, so if A1 is hammered but still manages to release the ball on a try he does not get a second chance. That's just the way the rules read.

The more interesting case is how do the rules apply in the case where A1 is fouled & loses the ball but not on a try. I believe what I posted is correct, that if A1 is fouled he does not get a chance to regain control & shoot, even if he's started his continuous motion. Taking it to a ridiculous extreme what if A1 is driving the lane, starts his motion, B1 reaches in and manages to knock the ball completely away from A1 as he is fouled. A1 doesn't get a chance to retrieve the ball & try again claimng continuous motion, does he?

The same principle applies in this sitch. And I call it that way.

Anyway, good discussion.

I guess if you let him take the second attempt, and he gets fouled again, he gets 4 free throws.

Nope. Two shots, one for each foul. :)

My thought on this situation is if a player is fouled, so that the ball is knocked loose, I have a very tough time considering this a try if the ball is still close enough to him to be able to regain control of, since the ball is not clearly in flight, but dislodged because of the contact by the opponent. does that make sense?

I agree that the best solution is to slow down...but since that didn't happen it seems to me that we have a player that has started his shooting motion, is fouled, and the attempt did not go in (he regained control).

The official had already declared two shots. I would have to consider this his determination that the original try has ended...disallow the basket and shoot two.

Lah me, simple play.

Rule 6-7Exception3-- foul during a try-- "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, <b>and is completed when the ball is clearly in flight</b>". Iow, in this case the initial trying <b>motion</b> in this sitch ENDED by rule as soon as the ball left the shooter's hand(s).

Rule- 4-40-4--"The try ends when....it is certain that the throw is unsuccessful...." In this case, the try ends as soon as the shooter touched it again after the ball left his hands on the first try.

Back to R6-7Exception--- "The ball does not become dead until the try or tap <b>ends</b>...." The try ended with the second touching(obviously it can't go in now).

What you have here is just a second attempt at a "try", but unfortunately it's a second attempt with a dead ball. You can never count it. No basket and 2 FT's is the only call.

Are you people trying to tell me that a player who is fouled while tapping a ball can continue tapping the ball until he finally gets one to drop? Same thing, isn't it?

My call count the bucket shoot one and move on. If the shooter pulled that off give it to him (especially if he's airborne). If you wave off that basket and shoot two be ready to Tee the Coach (you'll never be able to explain it to him) and probably never get invited back to that school. I've never seen what's described and I doubt I ever will I have a tough time visualizing a dislodged ball (I'm assuming it leaves his hand completely) recovering while airborne (must have had antigravity boots on) and getting a shot off. MJ could do that but if a kid pulled this off you gotta give it to him count the bucket. JMO

Obviously this crew ruled inadvertant whistle.

Jurassic,

By the strict letter of the law, you're probably right. However, I don't think the rules committee was factoring in the "mid-air bobble" specifically when they worded the rules you are referring to.

There are many, many times when a foul on a shooter causes the ball to dislodge ever so slightly from a shooter while they are in continuous motion but they play through it and we count the hoop. This one is a bit different because it sounds as if the ball is dislodged more than just a tiny bobble.

I still think I'd lean towards giving the benefit to the airborne shooter and going "and one" rather than nitpick and disallow the hoop and shoot two. Also, it would keep the coach of team A from popping a head gasket. :D

Z

I'm on your side, Jurassic! I don't get a lot of chances to be right, so please don't yell at me!

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?

A tap is a completely different situation, as no control was had by the player prior to the try. . . .why penalize an athletic play if the original fumble is clearly not a try for goal.

In the situation listed, because the official was too quick to judgement, that really complicated matters, still not sure whith how they came up with what they did though. . .

I'm assuming the player isn't hanging in midair for several seconds while he is making those several tap attempts so this would be a different situation as the player is no longer an airborn shooter.

[Edited by Maverick on Jan 28th, 2005 at 01:53 PM]

And.....what if the player is in the air for two taps and is fouled on the first? You gonna give him the basket if his second tap goes in?


Remember, the tap is a "try" too, and it also ends when it is obviously no good. It doesn't matter if the tap hits the board or not. If the tap leaves the shooter's hand, it still ends when the shooter touches it again.

Can you cite any rules that would negate the rules that I've cited?

Replace A1 regaining with A2 getting the ball and putting it in.;)

My contention is that when the first time the ball left the shooters hands, it was not a try if the contact by the defender caused the ball to become dislodged, therefore, the try has never started and never ended, so the shooter should have the right to regain control of the ball and then make their try for goal. Now if you ruled the first release of the ball a try, then you are correct, but I have a tough time picturing that being a legitimate try considering the ball probably never got more than a foot from player. On a tap, you are right, you have pretty much one shot at that one, but that is because a tap is a try almost instantly.

Care to provide a rule or case play to defend your argument?

Sect 40 Art. 2
"......A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. . . . "

As I stated earlier, the knocking of the ball loose from players possesion may not be considered a try (and again maybe it is, each play being unique) and therefore when the player regains possesion, may still attempt their original try

As I picture the play in my head, any release of the ball that stays close enough to the player for them to catch it regain control and shoot again before he lands is a pretty good chance that it wasnt a try for goal in the first place and it was merely a temporary loss of control due to the contact by the defender

Um, if it wasn't a try as you say above, then the ball is dead <b>immediately</b> when the foul occurred at the time of the ball being dislodged. That's rule 6-7-7. It doesn't matter what happens after that then. You can't have another, second try with a dead ball.

Again, it it wasn't a try for goal in the first place, then the foul makes the ball dead IMMEDIATELY by rule. You don't have an airborne shooter, continuation or nuthin'.

Can't have it both ways. The rules just don't allow it.

My thought

Why did the refs score two and give B the baseline?

I can see two shots if the ball was knocked clearly loose.

I can see two plus one if the ball never left hand and it was a hit/bobble

But score two and award B the ball after the whistle has blown just does not work in my book
.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Say what?

Do you own a rule book?

Rule 4-11-1- <font color = red><b>"CONTINUOUS MOTION APPLIES TO A TRY OR TAP FOR FIELD GOALS AND FREE THROWS..."</font></b>.

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.

Thanks Mav, did all the work for me!

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

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.

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.

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?

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

Or rules either. :D

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.

I have no idea what this means.

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.

He also said that the foul occurred on an act that WASN'T a try. How can a rule related to a try be relevant in any way at all to an act that isn't a try? That's where you guys are making absolutely no sense at all. You're saying it isn't a try, and then you go ahead and cite a rule about a try to back up your contention. How much sense does that make?

I don't believe this is a common foul. 4-19-2:

"A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor part of a double, simultaneous or a multiple foul."

Then exactly what kind of foul is it? You guys both said that it wasn't a "try", didn't you. Your exact words above are "I would also contend that the first time the player lost control of the ball, it ISN'T a try". So go ahead and tell me exactly what kind of foul it now is if it's not committed against a player making a try.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 28th, 2005 at 04:01 PM]

I think we are seeing why there was so much discussion in his association :D

The foul IS against a player making a try, it's just that the first time the ball was out of his hands wasn't a try. It is still a foul against a player attempting a try. The foul occured before the ball was in flight (for the try) and thus continuous motion applies.

I work for 6 different assignors. Hey did you try jumping off the stool? If you're able to do it where do I send the cookies? LOL.

Good call Larry!

I contend that the rule that has to take precedence here is the airborn shooter rule.
All of this happened as he was an airborne shooter(rule was cited earlier). This sounds like a phenomenal play. We can't set aside a rule just because the play is out of the ordinary.
A similar play would be A1 going from the right side of the bucket with the ball in the right hand and doing a reverse lay-up on the other side of the lane with the left hand and in the middle getting fouled. What is the difference between these two plays?

What type of dialogue took place with the benches? and the table?
Just curious.

That might be just about the dumbest quote that I've ever seen on this forum. The foul that was committed knocked the ball out of the shooter's hands. Now, you're basically trying to tell me that a try isn't a try.

I don't think that I'm gonna try and argue with that kind of logic any longer.

6-7-7 Exception-3

The try MUST BE CONTINUOUS.

It's NOT continuous if the ball is regained.

How exactly is that similar in any way, shape or form to what we've been discussing? :confused: In your play, the ball wasn't knocked out of the shooter's hand with the foul, then recovered by the shooter and shot again. Apples and oranges.

A1 has CONTROL of the ball in that situation. It is continuous control and therefore CONTINUOUS MOTION.

Because the rule book states that the player must be throwing the ball toward the goal to be a try, as I referenced earlier. I see nothing in this case that states that the player lost control of the ball (the first time) because he was attempting to throw for a goal. The ball was lost because the defender knocked it out. A defensive player can't initiate a try.

Because the rule book states that the player must be throwing the ball toward the goal to be a try, as I referenced earlier. I see nothing in this case that states that the player lost control of the ball (the first time) because he was attempting to throw for a goal. <font color = red>The ball was lost because the defender knocked it out. A defensive player can't initiate a try.</font> [/B][/QUOTE]That's what I've been trying to get through to you. If this wasn't a try, then the foul that was also made when knocking the ball loose makes the ball dead immediately. If the ball is dead, then there can't be another, second try. I've also cited rules to back up everything that I've said. The only thing that you guys have cited is a rule related to a "try" that you're attempting to apply to something that you also say isn't a "try".

You guys have contradicted yourselves, and the rules, right from the git-go on this one.

Jurassic
 

I can understand your point however, I said it was a SIMILAR play, not IDENTICAL. The shooter is still in the air and still in the act of shooting, what does it matter if he bobbles, it gets knocked out of his hands or if he switches hands.

This is simple, answer these two questions:

A1 goes up, B1 hits him, the ball comes out and A2 tips it in, does it count?

A1 goes up to tip the ball and is fouled by B1, on the way back down A1 tips it again and the ball goes in, does it count?

Re: Jurassic
 

The difference is that the shooter bobbling the ball or switching hands without a defender touching the ball does <b>not</b> end a try. A defender knocking the ball out of a shooter's hands <b>during</b> a try, and the shooter then grabbing or touching the ball again <b>does</b> end that try. The rules to back those statements up have already been cited.

That's why the plays aren't similar <b>or</b> identical.

I'm not sure either contributes to our discussion: In the first, A2 isn't the original shooter so it wouldn't count. But that doesn't mean that the same player can't complete a try. In the second situation, the first try ended so the second wouldn't count. I'm suggesting that there is only one try in our situation so again I don't think that helps with our discussion.

Jurassic
 

Jurassic - Help me understand - If A1 stays in the air and doesn't come back down to the ground, he can have more than one try for goal?

Re: Re: Jurassic
 

Everying you're basing all your arguments is based on the assumption that the first time the ball was out of the shooter's hands was a try. How can this be ruled a try?

Maverick
 

That is a valid point. I assumed it was ruled a try because the calling official said they were shooting 2 shots when he blew the whistle.

Both contribute.

The first shows that the ball is dead when it is loose and does not go in the basket from A1.

The second applies because of 4-40-6.

So again this is simple when the ball is knocked loose it is either NOT a try and dead, or it IS a try and a second try cannot be attempted.

Both cases are handled the same way no basket and 2 or 3 FTs.

You have still given no rule or case play that says otherwise, in fact the dead ball exception on a foul clearly states, the try MUST BE CONTINUOUS or the ball becomes dead. Starting the shooting motion and regaining the ball is NOT continuous.;)

ay there's the rub
 

That's the key phrase!

I read this thread rather quickly so forgive me if I am mistaken, but I am quite amazed that, while the definitions of airborne shooter and how a try ends have been provided, no one has quoted the definition of the act of shooting.

SECTION 40 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP
ART. 1 . . . The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter.

Once the ball leaves the player's hands the act of shooting has ended. So any touching of the ball after that could only be considered a second act.

Even though the original act of shooting does include the airborne shooter, others have already pointed out that that term is defined as "a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal..." Therefore, once this player catches the ball again, even this status must end. What we have on this play is a RErelease of the ball. That's why it matters, if the ball gets knocked out of his hands.

Ruling: No basket and two FTs for being fouled during the original act of shooting.

I read this thread rather quickly so forgive me if I am mistaken, but I am quite amazed that, while the definitions of airborne shooter and how a try ends have been provided, no one has quoted the definition of the act of shooting.

SECTION 40 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP
ART. 1 . . . The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter.
[/B][/QUOTE]You are mistaken. I cited rule 4-40 way back in the first post on page 2 of this thread. You are forgiven.

You are mistaken. I cited rule 4-40 way back in the first post on page 2 of this thread. You are forgiven. [/B][/QUOTE]

Am I misreading you, JR, or did you misunderstand me? You did NOT quote 4-40-1 which is the definition of the act of shooting, rather you only quoted 4-40-4 which states how a try ends.

That is EXACTLY what I wrote had been given, while stating that the definition provided in 4-40-1 had NOT been referenced in the thread.

Your above claim is baffling.

Here is your post from the top of page 2. It does NOT even contain the words "act of shooting", let alone a definition of that term:

But can I save your forgiveness and use it another time when I need it? Kind of like a "Get out of Jail Free" card. :)

Very interesting discussion - keep in mind that lots of us are learning from your carrying on like this !

I can't believe I 'll ever see this play...but I know how to call it now.

Jurassic Referee and Friends are right on this one.

Im thinking that this one is hard only because some people are thinking too much and not reading the rules?

You do?

How?

"What you have here is just a second attempt at a "try", but unfortunately it's a second attempt with a dead ball. You can never count it. No basket and 2 FT's is the only call."

1. Jump

2. Contact - Foul - Ball is loose (LET'S SAY it is possible that the ball enters the basket)

--- DEAD BALL! --- If a player touches the ball beyond this point, the play ends...

4. Player gets the ball --- PLAY ENDS

5. Player shoots and scores, but who cares since the play has already ended. Foul during a shot that failed = No basket (of course: the shot failed) and 2 free throws.


That's it! Why are you guys argueing about continuous motion and the definition of a try?! Am I missing something?