Continuous Motion

[RookieDude]

NFHS 4-11-2

"If an opponent fouls after a 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 privleges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight."

Our 3 person crew had 3 on Saturday night. (2 in Frosh game and 1 in Varsity game)

Home Freshman boys Coach: "That can't be continous motion...there is no continous motion rule in High School."

Visitor Freshman boys Coach: "That's not continous motion...the ball hadn't left his hand yet."

Home Varsity Coach: "That's not continous motion...the player's foot was on the ground."

[Adam]

This is the stuff that makes officiating fun. It really makes you feel like we're part of a secret fraternity (you know, the kind that lets girls be members). We know all the secret rules that others don't have access to.

[Mark Dexter]

I'll never understand why people think that every other NBA rule applies to high school ball, but continuous motion doesn't.

[Mark Dexter]

Section XI—Field Goal Attempt
A field goal attempt is a player’s attempt
to shoot the ball into his basket for a
field goal.The act of shooting starts
when, in the official’s judgment, the
player has started his shooting motion
and continues until the shooting motion
ceases and he returns to a normal floor
position. It is not essential that the ball
leave the shooter’s hand. His arm(s)
might be held so that he cannot actually
make an attempt.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

I'll never understand why people think that every other NBA rule applies to high school ball, but continuous motion doesn't.

Good point.

[tomegun]

Some veteran members have posted, but I two questions for younger officials.

What is the difference between NBA, college and high school continuous motion?

What percentage (take a wag) of fouls that are called "on the floor" should actually be shooting fouls?

[Kevzebra]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Some veteran members have posted, but I two questions for younger officials.


What percentage (take a wag) of fouls that are called "on the floor" should actually be shooting fouls?

I'll take the second question.....WAY TOO MANY! More times than not I see players that have "gathered" the ball and are starting up when they are fouled and the partner yells "on the floor"! Now, if you are paitent with your whistles, you can get the foul and the free throws or just wait and see if the ball goes in. Now, don't get me wrong, I would never let a player get hammered, but I think most of the "experienced" officials will know what I am talking about. Any move toward the basket (even if it is very slight) constitutes motion and should be called a shooting foul!

[Adam]

Last weekend I had a JV girls game with a first year partner. He had a tough block charge right in front of him. He came out hard with the block and pointed to the floor and said, “on the floor.” Problem was, he wasn’t very loud but the gym was after that play, so people only saw him point down.

After everything got sorted out with the injured player, we started to inbound the ball and the coach was throwing a fit because he saw him count the basket. I told the coach he was pointing to the floor. This is the problem with pointing to the floor, which comes from calling non-shooting fouls “on the floor.” First of all, it’s not relevant if the player was “on the floor” or not. Second, pointing down is confusing to all watching. Wave off the shot, and if you have to say something, say “before the shot.”

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Last weekend I had a JV girls game with a first year partner. He had a tough block charge right in front of him. He came out hard with the block and pointed to the floor and said, “on the floor.” Problem was, he wasn’t very loud but the gym was after that play, so people only saw him point down.

After everything got sorted out with the injured player, we started to inbound the ball and the coach was throwing a fit because he saw him count the basket. I told the coach he was pointing to the floor. This is the problem with pointing to the floor, which comes from calling non-shooting fouls “on the floor.” First of all, it’s not relevant if the player was “on the floor” or not. Second, pointing down is confusing to all watching. Wave off the shot, and if you have to say something, say “before the shot.”

I had a similar thing happen earlier this year. I had never in my life thought that the pointing to the floor motion looked anything like a count the bucket. Apparently I was wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is the problem with pointing to the floor, which comes from calling non-shooting fouls “on the floor.” First of all, it’s not relevant if the player was “on the floor” or not. Second, pointing down is confusing to all watching. Wave off the shot, and if you have to say something, say “before the shot.”

Agree. Why not simply use signal #12 (no score)?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by tomegun

What percentage (take a wag) of fouls that are called "on the floor" should actually be shooting fouls?

I'd say at least half.

I lean waaaay towards the side of awarding shots. If you even look at the basket and blink, I'm probably calling it continuous motion.

[just another ref]

This is one of those things I have been doing so long, I don't remember starting it. I blow the whistle, then, all in the same breath, spit the whistle out and say, emphatically, "No shot!" My idea was, if I do this quickly, no one can accuse me of waiting to see if it was going in before making the call.
Now I learn, in that other thread, that whether it goes in or not is significant to some in whether it was a foul or not. I still don't get that one.

[Kevzebra]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is one of those things I have been doing so long, I don't remember starting it. I blow the whistle, then, all in the same breath, spit the whistle out and say, emphatically, "No shot!" My idea was, if I do this quickly, no one can accuse me of waiting to see if it was going in before making the call.
Now I learn, in that other thread, that whether it goes in or not is significant to some in whether it was a foul or not. I still don't get that one.

That is part of knowing the difference between a foul and just a touch. Sometimes just a touch can throw off a shot and sometimes it does not. I hate seeing people reward players (and slowing the flow of a game down) on little touch fouls that can be avoided. Do not get me wrong, there are "and one" times that have to be called (heavy contact, hit to the head, ect.), the ones I am talking about are the avoidable calls.

Sometimes I do let the play finish and call a foul late if it does not go in. If that is wrong (and according to some people it is), so be it. I think it makes the game flow better.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Kevzebra

That is part of knowing the difference between a foul and just a touch.

The difference between a foul and a touch is not the difference between the shot going in or not. A player may get hit hard, then throw it up, hoping for 2 free throws, nothing more. Some of these shots go in, too.

In deciding what is a foul and what is not, what I try to see is the trajectory of the ball as it leaves the hand, the shooter's follow through, sometimes even the shooter's facial expression. Sometimes none of these things are visible or helpful, but whether the shot is good or not has very little to do with it for me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

I'll never understand why people think that every other NBA rule applies to high school ball, but continuous motion doesn't.

That is a great point.

Peace