B-1 fouls A-1 while A-2 is in the act of shooting. A-2 continues to shoot and scores. Doesn't the shot?

Count it. Think of the new defensive strategies that would be in place if you didn't! A player on the other team has an open 3 to win the game--just foul another player to stop the shot. If a player is already in the act of shooting, they get the bucket if it goes in.

The shot counts. Continuous motion applies in this case.

(If A2 was going in for the game winner, B1's foul on A1 at the other end of the court would not affect the try.)

One thing to keep in mind, if A-1 fouls B-1 while A-2 is shooting, but hasn't released the shot, the basket doesn't count. This is according to NFHS rules.

"Keep 'em straight up!"

I agree with this 100%. At our rules meeting last night the state director was adamant that the shot does NOT count if the shooter had not released the ball before his teammate was fouled. Continuous motion does not apply unless the shooter is the player fouled.

That's straight out of the rule book,MJ.See R4-11-3.Easy call.

MJ, maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, and if so, I apologize. But I think you and BigJoe are talking about opposite scenarios. BigJoe is talking about a situation in which A1 is shooting and A1's teammate fouls an opponent. In this case continuous motion does not apply, and if A1 has not released the shot, then the shot can not count. This is b/c continuous motion is only applied when the defense commits a foul. If a member of the offensive team commits a foul the ball is dead immediately.

You, however, seem to be talking about a case where A1 is shooting and an opponent fouls A1's teammate. In this case continuous motion does apply and the shot by A1 would count. If your state director said the shot would not count, then I believe he is wrong.

Continuous motion applies anytime the defense commits a foul during a try for goal. It doesn't matter if the foul is committed against the shooter or a teammate of the shooter. It also doesn't matter if the foul is personal or technical in nature.

Chuck

Uh, ....
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

You, however, seem to be talking about a case where A1 is shooting and an opponent fouls A1's teammate. Chuck

I know what you thought you meant to say. ;)

Re: Uh, ....
 

Uh-oh. I just re-read it, and it still makes sense to me. What's wrong with it?!?! Am I that tired?

Chuck

Schmidt MJ,
Don't take what you understood your state director to say to the bank.
He's wrong.
In every state. :rolleyes:
mick

Re: Re: Uh, ....
 

"You, however, seem to be talking about a case where A1 is shooting and an opponent fouls A1's teammate.

In this case continuous motion does apply and the shot by A1 would count. If your state director said the shot would not count, then I believe he is wrong." - Chuck

...[a couple of spaces.....]
Okay, that works. :)

Ok, I am totally enshrouded in an antihistamine-induced fog, b/c I have no idea if you're saying I screwed it up, or if you're agreeing with me, or if you're saying you just read it wrong, or if you're correcting what I wrote to make it "work".

What the &*%^$#* am I missing?!?!

Chuck

Rest easy,Mr. Elias!As usual,your analysis of the play is cogent,pithy and correct.

Our hopes and prayers are also with you in your present moment of physical distress!Get well soon!

Good idea, JR. I'm off to take a nap. I can't focus mentally right now.

Chuck

Of Course, I agree with you.

You wrote: <i>"You, however, seem to be talking <b>about a case</b> where A1 is shooting and an opponent fouls A1's teammate. <b>In this case</b> continuous motion does apply and the shot by A1 would count. If your state director said the shot would not count, then I believe he is wrong."</i>

After reading the words, again, and then again, I now see that you were not changing "cases", but rather continuing on and correcting the case of SchmidtMJ.

ShmidtMJ changed horses based upon BigJoe's post, and I thought you had gotten back on the original case rather than correctly correcting ShmidtMJ.

...And I cannot even blame my thought process on Antihistamines. ...That's just me. :rolleyes:

Good luck with that cold thing. ;)

mick

Sorry I changed the subject
 

I wish I would have kept my mouth shut on this one! I hate to think I caused anyone brain cramps. I just wanted to point out the new rule change, so I changed horses midstream. In the original post, an opponant of the shooter fouls. In my post, I wanted to point out that if a teammate of the shooter fouls, continuous motion does not apply.

On an aside, is there anyone out there in the Myrtle Beach, SC area who would know if there is going to be any mechanics clinics next week? I am going on vacation next week and will miss ours here in MN. I hate to go into the first game cold. Thanks for your help.

I think I may be confused, so let me try to clarify this for my own brain:

A1 shooting--B2 fouls A2=A2 shot counts+A ball or 1-1

A1 shooting--A2 fouls B2=A2 shot counts only if released+B gets ball or 1-1.

Is this right?

A1 shooting--B2 fouls A2 = A's shot counts + A ball or 1-1 or 2 (depending on bonus situation)

A1 shooting--A2 fouls B2 = A's shot counts only if released + B gets ball or 1-1 or 2 (depending on bonus situation)

Yer good.

You got it!
 

Sleeper, you got it right. Usually, the official off ball will make the foul call. If you are on the ball you will have to determine if the ball has been released before the whistle. Rarely, will this situation be called by the on ball official. Most of the continuous motion calls on ball involve fouls on the shooter. This is why it is so important to work on your off ball coverage. Consult the officials manual for court coverage. Even if you are working with a rookie, stay with the off ball coverage because it doesn't do anyone any good to have one official calling on ball violations and fouls from across the floor. It makes you both look bad. If you aren't sure on this rule study the continuous motion definition rule 4-11.

"Keep 'em straight up!"

MJ, you need to re-read BigJoe's post. He's talking about A2 fouling B1, not B1 fouling A2.

If A1 is in the act of shooting and B1 fouls A2, then the basket will most definitely count if it goes. If you're state interpreter told you something different, he is wrong.

6.7 SITUATION C:
Under what circumstances does the ball remain live when a foul occurs just prior to the ball being in flight during a try or tap?
Ruling: The ball would ordinarily become dead at once, but it remains live if the foul is by the defense, and this foul occurs after A1 has started the try or tap for goal and time does not expire before the ball is in flight. The foul by the defense may be either personal or technical and the exception to the rule applies to field goal tries and taps and free-throw tries. (4-11; 4-40-1)

BigJoe, this isn't a new rule. It's been in the books for years.

bktballref:

What I am pointing out is the clarification in rule 4-11-3 which is a new rule. In the past, a foul by a teammate of the shooter wouldn't cancel the shot if the shooter has started the try. This was definitely an advantage for the offense and is why this was put in.

Hardly a new rule,Big Joe.Been around for a long,long time.Check out R6-7-7 in last year's rule book.This sitch isn't one of the exceptions listed.Also check out #13 of the "Basketball Rules Fundamentals' at the back of any old book.It says "a live ball foul by the offense causes the ball to become dead immediately,unless the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal".

Joe, 4-11-3 is more of a clarification than a change. Notice in 4-11-1 it says (and always has, as far as I know) that continuous motion has no significance unless a foul is committed by the defense. The logical implication is that if a foul is committed by a teammate of the shooter, continuous motion would not apply and the ball would become dead immediately. Therefore, if the shot had not left the shooter's hand, no basket. There's been no change in the ruling, just a slight clarification.

Chuck

Sure it would. The shot would only count if the ball was ijn flight. It's always been that way. 4-11-3 simply clarifies that point. It's not a rule change.

I stand corrected!

Now that I'm back at my computer let me apologize. Yes, I somehow inverted the original situation and changed who was fouling who. I was probably misunderstanding the state interpreter the other night also. Anyway, I do agree that if the defense fouls A2, then A1's shot counts if he was in the act. If A2 fouls B2, then A1's shot must be in the air to count. It's amazing how much clearer some things are the next morning.

Good call, Schimdt MJ!

<hr>

I can kick more calls than you can.