In the act of shooting?

[bainsey]

Let's say that second step was a pivot foot, and would have been a travel had it not been for the foul. (In other words, the foul caused the travel.)

If you call the foul, allow continuous motion, and the pivot foot comes back down, then the ball is released, does the shot count if it goes in? In other words, does the foul-induced-travel negate the try?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Let's say that second step was a pivot foot, and would have been a travel had it not been for the foul. (In other words, the foul caused the travel.)

If you call the foul, allow continuous motion, and the pivot foot comes back down, then the ball is released, does the shot count if it goes in? In other words, does the foul-induced-travel negate the try?

Would you count any basket after the shooter traveled?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If you call the foul, allow continuous motion, and the pivot foot comes back down, then the ball is released, does the shot count if it goes in? In other words, does the foul-induced-travel negate the try?

No. Yes.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No. Yes.

Make up your mind.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Let's say that second step was a pivot foot, and would have been a travel had it not been for the foul.

If it would have been a travel if not for the foul, it is still a travel.

[constable]

Rarely called but it is the correct ruling. Cancel the bucket on the travel. I've only seen it called once where the bucket was killed and a1 awarded two throws.

[Freddy]

This sit is very similar to a recent state association test question. Something like, "A1, having begun his/her habitual shooting motion, is fouled by B2; the contact by B2 causes A1 to take an extra step (presumably amounting to a travelling violation), after which he continues his shot, which goes in."
As per previously mentioned rule- and casebook citations, the answer was correct that the basket is cancelled, the foul counts, and A1 goes to the line for two shots.
This seems to be in accord with what was stated above.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by constable

Cancel the bucket on the travel.

That's not quite the ruling. Since he traveled, it could not have been his habitual motion to begin a try, and thus not a try.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's not quite the ruling. Since he traveled, it could not have been his habitual motion to begin a try, and thus not a try.

So you're going to call the foul and award the ball at a designated spot?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's not quite the ruling. Since he traveled, it could not have been his habitual motion to begin a try, and thus not a try.

Disagree. Whether he was fouled in the act of shooting doesn't matter how or whether he finishes the motion. If he travels, afterward, it's just a two-shot foul regardless of whether the shot goes in.

The key rule here is that an offensive violation causes the ball to become dead.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Disagree. Whether he was fouled in the act of shooting doesn't matter how or whether he finishes the motion. If he travels, afterward, it's just a two-shot foul regardless of whether the shot goes in.

The key rule here is that an offensive violation causes the ball to become dead.

OK, I get the first part.

But the second part can't be right: if the foul caused the violation, then the violation never happened.

Where is the rule on this (and by "rule" I mean rule, not case)?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK, I get the first part.

But the second part can't be right: if the foul caused the violation, then the violation never happened.

Where is the rule on this (and by "rule" I mean rule, not case)?

The violation happened; the enforcement of it (throw in to the other team) is ignored.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK, I get the first part.

But the second part can't be right: if the foul caused the violation, then the violation never happened.

Where is the rule on this (and by "rule" I mean rule, not case)?

Well, the question is, what causes the ball to become dead. And what are the exceptions.

In the case of a shooting foul, the applicable rules are: 6-7-1 (goal made), 6-7-6 (end of quarter, not applicable in our hypothetical), 6-7-7 (a foul other than team or player control, with exceptions), and 6-7-9 (a violation with exceptions.

The applicable exception to 6-7-7 is the try has begun. The only exceptions to 6-7-9 apply to the "opponent," or defensive violations. Further, there's nothing that stipulates the traveling rules don't apply after a foul. The only time they don't apply is noted in 6-1.

A dead ball going through the basket is meaningless.

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's not quite the ruling. Since he traveled, it could not have been his habitual motion to begin a try, and thus not a try.

If that was true, all a player would have to do is hold an airborne shooter to where he couldn't release the ball and had to return to the floor. Instead of giving the fouled player free throws, you'd give the defense an advantage with a throw-in out of bounds.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

In other words, does the foul-induced-travel negate the try?

It better, or else a player could get fouled in the backcourt in the act of shooting and "foul-induced" travel all the way to the basket for a layup.