NBA continuation rule
 

Did anyone catch Derek Fisher's 3 pt try after a foul against Dallas tonight? Why wasn't it continuation? If it is because his foot hit the floor, then why do they allow a step on other continuation plays? I thought maybe the referee anticipated the foul and waved it off too soon. J.Richardson got them in the end though, so it won't be talked about too much.

My understanding to the NBA Rule is the same as the rule is written at the NF and NCAA level. I have no idea about the play you saw, but I can tell you what people think is special to the NBA continuation rule is basically the same at the other levels.

Peace

I would agree JRut. I hear that type of comment almost every game.

"Hey ref, this isn't the NBA!"

...

Ok, I somewhat already knew that, however the player does get to continue their shot. :D

JRut is right. The NBA rule is essentially the same just explained with more detail. Here was another topic on it. I took the opposition just to get some good arguments out of it. Here's the thread:
http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...t=continuation

This is absolutely correct, but how many times do refs come in with, "no shot, on the floor?" There are way too many fouls resulting in a throw-in that should be two free-throws.

Couldn't agree any more.
I can't remember what game it was last night but a kid drove and gathered the ball, right as he did he got hit on the arm, the referee blew the whistle and in one continous motion he scores with the other defender right in front of him taking a charge, the official called the hit on the arm and came in waving off the basket.

It was the TX/ WVU.

refTN,
1. I'm not clear what "Couldn't agree any more" means:
a. I could not agree with you more, meaning "very much in agreement"
b. I find that I can no longer agree with you

Anyway, I did not see the play you described but it sounds like the right call - waving off the basket, that is. The defensive foul happened first, so it was called... if the shot is not waved off then you have to call the charge. In either case, there can be no FTs.

Perhaps this is case where a multiple foul should have been called??? When you think about it, continuation would mean the ball is not dead until the shot ends and both the hack by the first defender and the charge by the shooter happened during a live ball.

It was the UCLA/Gonzaga game, UCLA player in the last 2 minutes. I was very puzzled as to why the official waved off the basket. The player was gathering the ball for his shot when the first player hit his arm, then as he released the ball there was contact with the defender in front of him.

From the comfort of my sofa it looked like continous motion and the basket should have counted, but that's a lot lower-paying vantage point than the official who had only a split second to make his call.

How about the shot at the end of the UCLA-Gonzaga game last night? I'm still trying to understand why that was waved off.

Oops! Note to self: Always read entire thread before posting!

I agree BadNews. The only thing I could figure was that he called the foul on the defender behind the shooter and not the one positioned for the block/charge.

Did anyone happen to flip the channel and catch the Derek Fisher shot? I stilll don't know if it should have counted or not.

This topic seems to come up regularly. But the last time (last year, I believe)I decided to chime in, I went to the NBA website for some input. Basically, it is similar to the NFL rule on catching a pass.....the player must make an athletic play with the ball. The idea is about entertainment, and a bunch of traveling calls is not viewed as entertainment by the league.