Continuous Motion
 

Fri night BV hotly contested league game.... A1 goes from top of the key drives the right side of the lane and goes into a jump stop. As he is in the air going into his jump stop B1 puts two hands in his back and pushes. B1 then goes up off of two feet and scores. From C I come in and get the foul and I score the goal as I judged that this was part of A1's normal shooting motion - in fact A1 (team A's star player) has completed this same motion 3 or 4 times already in the game with the jump stop and then up with the shot. Of course this is right in front of team B HC and he is, let's say "not happy" that I scored the goal...I reported the foul and then explained to him that I judged the jump stop to be part of A1's shooting motion...part of what he was mad about I believe is that A1 had already done this 3 or 4 times to his team, he was even yelling "you're giving that to HIM!?!?!" I realize this may be a tough call without seeing it, but what is the consensus out there? Jump stop part of continuous motion? Appears to be nothing that definitively rules it out from the rule & case plays that I have read, but I appreciate the feedback..

If the push was before A1 landed, then I would not award continuous motion. In other words, if the sequence was

• A1 jumps off one foot
• B1 pushes A1
• A1 lands on two feet
• A1 jumps and shoots the ball

I think the foul has occurred before the start of the shooting motion. So he's not allowed to complete the motion and score. JMO, without seeing it.

EDIT: It would be different if you thought that A1 was actually trying to shoot the ball when he jumped off one foot. If you feel that B1's foul stopped his act of shooting and forced him to land, then it's a shooting foul. But if the jump was obviously part of the jump stop, no free throws from me.

That is essentially the sequence and I don't believe he was going up off of one foot, but couldn't this be considered part of the "usual foot or body movement in any activity" that A1 is allowed if pivoting or stepping (Fed CB 6.7 Comment - admittedly doesn't mention jump stop) that is allowed per the continous motion provision? He never put the ball back on the ground...the fact that he has already made this same motion and shot the ball doesn't hold any weight as far as being part of his "usual shooting motion"?

I'm CoachA1...I want Intentional. How is B1 playing the ball?

Ha I was waiting for that....sorry coach I blew that one...however I could argue after getting torched by A1, in traffic B1 reached for the ball and ran into A1's back instead as he was trying to pick his jock up off the floor...

Oh, I see A1 scored, too...so therefore you cannot have an intentional foul if A1 makes the shot.....

:rolleyes:

I had that called last year.....

I know, I know, I should have whipped out my rulebook! :D

what he said!

You can still have an intentional if the shot is good. Just because the shot goes doesn't negate an intentional foul. Penalty for this is still 2 shots and the ball and the basket is still counted if it goes.

Me thinks CoachP was being sarcastic...which is suprising b/c coaches are never sarcastic???:confused::)

Yup! Therefore the "rolls eyes (sarcastic) emoticon!

But MY play was true. Trail came in with Intentional foul and Lead waved it off because the basket was good. They confer'd and gave her an "and 1".

We had the game in hand by then so I didn't whip out the rule book!

And then the same play happened 3 minutes later except A1 missed. 2 shots and ball.

I disagree, I think this can be included in the habitual shooting motion; just like on a layup.

I do not think that you can call this a shooting foul becuase of the jump stop.

here is the reason if the player gathers and goes up directly it is the normal shooting motion.
however if the play executes a jump stop, that is another motion completly, then they go up it would be the shooting motion.
So IMHO if the player is fouled and then "Jump Stop" we are on the floor the foul is not shooting because the "Stop" means that is what they did, and that is not continuos motion by definition.

You can tell if the player was fouled hard enough to cause them not to be able to complete the shooting motion and very rarely is the ball going up while a player is executing a jump stop as it would be if they were in the middle of try. So for those of you who say that we can not make the judgment as to what they were doing once the ball was gathered I beg to differ in this case.

Let me just ask this:

If a player on his way to a layup is fouled prior to planting his final foot, do you give him continuous motion?

on a lay up I do - because that is part of the motion of going to the basket, executing a Jump Stop is coming from one legal position to another and pausing ever so slightly then continuing on.

in that process as I said the ball is rarely being lifted to the basket, it usually comes down and then goes back up. and that is not a part of the habitual shooting motion.

Why?

I don't think the blue is relevant.

How many layups do you see that start with the ball moving down once it's gathered? Quite a few.

Agreed, the ball often comes down during that last step before a layup...and often times there is a pass rather than a shot when a player goes up to attempt a layup, so we can't even say that the intent is clear that someone who goes "in" for a layup is in fact going to attempt a shot....is it the pause of the jump stop that throws people off? I'll admit it did look a little goofy due to the time lapse, but I can't find anything rules/case wise that tells me that he can't complete that motion...

but the motion is continual from the gather through the lay up of the ball...

the motion of a jump stop, is a stop, which in my opinion is a stop of motion, therefore, I call it on the floor.
the explaination has always worked for me when I had to give it.
Coach he stopped!

Player dribbling down the left side of lane, jumpstops and gets hit and knocked to the floor?

if you call it going up, how did you make that determination?

that is my point - not a continuous motion, means on the floor.

Tell me you don't say these words.

Just because the feet come to a stop doesn't mean the hands do. I see no rules basis for your distinction.

First, he said time lapse, nothing to do with continuity of motion.

Second, do you really call this "on the floor" during the game?

I never say "these words" :D and I try very hard not to say "on the floor".

I go with "No Shot"!

I see the point you are trying to make, I guess we are just philosophically opposed here.
Of course it does help to make this call when you see the whole play, and call it in the context of the game you have going on.
Because I know that I have in my lifetime probably give an "and one" (never say those words):cool: on this play.

So the lesson is to see the whole play and then make the call!

Just b/c the feet stop, does this mean it has to be a "stop" from a CM standpoint? The rest of the body is probably moving as much as someone going for a layup as the ball comes up for the shot, just a brief change of direction of the ball as it comes down and then up (again same as a layup attempt)

As for your case of the jumpstopper getting floored, that is a very interesting question...why do we differentiate when a kid goes in for a layup, gets hit, and then passes the ball after the whistle vs. if he shoots it after the whistle? The action after the whistle has to at least partly determine what call you are going with doesn't it? In your case I would say no ft's b/c his motion, while he may have started to shoot with the jumpstop, I could not tell if that was something he was going to finish...however (as my alter ego takes over), if a kid goes in to attempt a layup and gets floored before he is able to complete any motion (pass or shot), we are probably all going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was going to shoot....so I see where I might have a conflict there...I still go back to this move being part of this kid's "habitual" movement....

And I'm sure there have been times where I have called this "no shot" also...agreed it is often an "instinct" call, but after it happened I promised that I would try to get a rules/case based interpretation to defend my gut instinct...

Good. :) You scared me referencing it twice. "On the floor" means nothing, but I'm sure you know that.

We're in basic agreement here, I think.

Is it really? Did the player actually stop? I'm counting the basket if the action of the A1 was such that A1 continued, without hesitation, to the shot.

If they get knocked to the floor and I think they were trying to shoot it....2 shots.

It is deju vue all over again, Part II.
 

This is a very good example of Continuous Motion, and the A1 being fouled in the Act of Shooting. Score the basket.

See the following thread: http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...es-travel.html

Check the NFHS and NCAA rule references in my post in the aformentioned thread.

MTD, Sr.

You may have to log in to see the video.

https://www.eofficials.com/controlpa...ontentID=54020

you have to go to the 2007 - 2008 archives
2007-08 NCAA Video Bulletin - Continuous Motion - January 30, 2008

however this does not address the jump stop it is simply a direct drive to the basket.

I guess I am going to have to really change my mind after finding this citation as far as the Jump Stop - you get the movement.
wow -

Federation
Rule 6
section 7 DEAD BALL
Exceptions -
c. Article 7 occurs by any opponent of a player who has started a try or tap for goal (is in the act of shooting) before the foul occurred, provided time did not expire before the ball was in flight. 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, and is completed when the ball is clearly in flight. The trying motion may include arm, foot or body movements used by the player when throwing the ball at his/her basket.

the NCAA does not address any other movement regarding this other than the habitual motion.