Displacing player into shooter

[Todd VandenAkker]

Hmmm, good point Rusty. I was thinking that the continuous motion rule DID apply only if it is the shooter being fouled, but the wording in both the Rules and Case books certainly implies that it could be an off-the-ball foul, too. It still seems like both books are referring to the shooter being fouled, but since they don't specifically say that, it must be as you stated. Would have been nice to find a case book situation that mentions an off-ball foul during a field goal attempt, instead of only such a foul during a free-throw (Case Book, 6.7B and 6.7F). But, if they MEANT a foul on the shooter, "they" would have WRITTEN it that way. Still, the situation as described highlights the importance of having a "slow" whistle: If the ball does go through, and the contact was fairly mild, it would nice to hold the whistle and play on if at all possible, instead of counting the goal and giving the ball right back to the same team. Sort of like those outside jump shots with the Lead intently watching off-ball, the defense pushes someone in the back while positioning for a rebound, and you blow the foul without knowing the ball went in. Now Team A get the bucket, PLUS gets the ball back (or more shots, if in the bonus). Hate it when that happens.

[Buckley]

While A1 is shooting a layup, B1 displaces A2, knocking him into shooter A1. B1's actions warranted a foul but were not intentional. The play affected the shot, and the shot did not go in. What would you have?

We had the play last night and awarded the ball out of bounds to team A, since they were not in the 'bonus'....however, we discussed the play thoroughly after the game and wondered if justice was done to the shooter since it did in fact affect his shot.

[Todd VandenAkker]

Bummer for the shooter, but I think you got it right. The foul by B1 caused the ball to become dead, which means the shot stops if it hasn't left the shooter's hands yet.

[Rusty Gilbert]

I agree that you got the call right, but the foul by B1 DID NOT cause the ball to become dead if, prior to the foul occuring, A1 had picked up his dribble and begun his throwing motion in shooting the layup. This is the "continuous motion" rule (4-11-1 and 2; and 6-7 Exception 3), and even though the foul was not against the shooter, the shooter is allowed to continue customary movement in shooting for a goal.

If the shot had gone into the basket, you should have counted the score, and then given the ball to Team A out of bounds because of the common foul by Team B committed before the bonus is in effect.

"Continuous motion" is in effect even if the shooter is not the one who gets fouled. The trigger is that "there is a foul by the defense 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." The foul by the defense can be against any offensive player.

This is not a shooting foul, since the defender did not foul a player in the act of shooting. Therefore, you could not award 2 shots to the shooter. As Todd noted, "bummer for the shooter."

[Mark Padgett]

Let's play "what if". Let's assume you agree with the theory (and I think I do) that A1 is entitled to the result of his shot based on the continuous motion theory. How would you have administered things if team A was in the bonus and A1's shot did not go in? You really couldn't send A1 to the line after A2, since no one on team B made contact with A1. It seems weird to me that A1's shot is good if it goes, but if it doesn't, that's tough.

Just curious.

[J Morrow]

Hey Todd, just curious; why do you "hate it when that happens"? Are you saying that the defense should not be penalized for pushing an opponent in the back if the shot is good? I don't understand what difference it makes. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

[ken roberts]

Let's play "what if". Let's assume you agree with the theory (and I think I do) that A1 is entitled to the result of his shot based on the continuous motion theory. How would you have administered things if team A was in the bonus and A1's shot did not go in? You really couldn't send A1 to the line after A2, since no one on team B made contact with A1. It seems weird to me that A1's shot is good if it goes, but if it doesn't, that's tough.

I agree with your interpretation. The penalty is the same as if there had been a foul in rebounding after the shot. If the ball goes in, it counts...otherwise, tough cookies.

Still, i have never seen this happen. Furthermore, a coach couldn't exploit this loophole and do it intentionally, since it'd be, well, an intentional foul.

Would this play have the same interpretation in the NCAA (both men's and women's)?

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by J Morrow on 02-01-2000 07:49 PM
Hey Todd, just curious; why do you "hate it when that happens"? Are you saying that the defense should not be penalized for pushing an opponent in the back if the shot is good? I don't understand what difference it makes. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

---

I "hate it" when that happens, because in most cases the push is strong enough to gain an advantage if the rebound comes that way, but mild enough to consider incidental contact if the ball goes through. Yes, blow the foul if it's significant enough that you can't ignore it, but otherwise I'd rather have it deemed incidental if the goal counts. Unfortunately, one usually can't react that way anyhow, 'cuz by keying on the rebounders and not being able to see the shot go in, you're going to call it (as I have) if it warrants being called. But as I'm reporting the foul, knowing that the same team is going to get the ball back, I'm "wishing" it didn't occur that way.

[boileref]

This situation was brought up by an NBA official at a camp I attended last summer. The HS and NCAA rulings are the same that the shot is good if it goes in and the foul is penalized on its own merits....either ball out of bounds to team A or bonus free throws. The same as if an off the ball foul had been comitted by B anywhere during a try by A (example in Purdue/Ohio St. last Saturday). However, the NBA is a different story....just for fun, here's their ruling:

If the shot misses, the shooter gets two (or three) free throws. If the shot is good, the player who was fouled gets one free throw, I don't know how they came up with that, but that's what it is. It even took awhile and rule book refernces to convince this official the college rule was different.

[Alligator Bag]

Sounds like you got it right. Good work and a very interesting scenario.