On the shot or not

[Freddy]

What allowance, if any, does 4-11, continuous motion, permit that is not covered by 4-44, act of shooting?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nitpicking for the newbies.

No taps? In thirteen games? Unless prehistoric rules are being used (that will get Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s attention), a player fouled in the act of tapping is treated the same as if he was fouled in the act of shooting, and is awarded free throws. No "gather" on a tap.

Yes, because they were all girl's basketball games. Girls tend to not tap the ball like boys do. They tend to grab the ball and throw the ball at the basket. I do not recall a single tap that you see in a boy's game for the most obvious reasons. They are not near the basket in height. And newbies need to understand that girls basketball is different than boys basketball and the actions in which a girl starts a shot is going to look different than a boy starting a shot. And often is the reason you have people once again say the most dreaded thing in basketball officiating, "On the floor....."

And yes we are not talking about a rebound, we are talking about a player going to the basket off a dribble or a pass. I have never seen a player do that without first gathering the ball. And gathering the ball does not just involve both hands and you never heard me suggest that such action involved both hands. Gather can and does involve one hand. And certainly did not see anything different this weekend.

Peace

[tref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Now this term I used is used by many at higher levels. If is not your understanding again, I am OK with that feeling. But there are no rules that are specific to what a habitual motion entails. But it seems like you cannot make that motion until you start to gather the basketball in an attempt to shoot the basketball.

Peace

+1

I agree, when the ball is gathered below the FT line extended on a dribble drive to the basket & a foul by the defense is committed, they are shooting unless they pass or call timeout.

Lets look for a reason to put them on the line instead of looking for a reason to do the old "nice move kid now take it out & try again."

[bainsey]

Accurate or not...?

"The NFHS continuation rule is exactly the same as that of the NBA."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And some things are philosophies. I believe and was taught early on in my career by some that officiating is like three legs. One leg is rules knowledge. Another leg is mechanics and the final leg is philosophy.

The "gather" is a philosophy that a lot of people subscribe to and will continue to subscribe to despite this conversation or your reference or interpretation of the rule. There have also have even been visual interpretations from the NF on this issue in their S&I Rulebook.

Now maybe for you this does not suffice and I am OK with that feeling you have. But the reason that people use philosophies is so that they are consistent in their application of a rule and sometimes with their judgment.

Forgive me but after working about 13 games in two days I cannot think of a single time where someone shot the ball and did not first "gather" the ball and move forward towards the basket. What often officials do is to not award shots because the player did not get off the floor, which you have officials say, "On the floor" as their justification for not ruling that a player is in the act of shooting.

Now this term I used is used by many at higher levels. If is not your understanding again, I am OK with that feeling. But there are no rules that are specific to what a habitual motion entails. But it seems like you cannot make that motion until you start to gather the basketball in an attempt to shoot the basketball.

Everything which you wrote is good and helps provide quality discussion on this topic. It also probably is exactly what is desired from those in your area at the levels which you work. I'm not going to disagree with you, I will simply express that we may be discussing this point with different target audiences in mind.

To be clear, what I wrote in my previous post was strictly for the HS level.

This being the summer a large number of people are attending camps with college and NBA officals. They are paying good money to hear the instruction and thoughts of those people--what you refer to as philosophies.
The point which I desire to make crystal clear is that those philosophies may be fully appropriate at those levels of play, but can also be fully inappropriate for the local HS game on Friday night.

What concerns me is that people may substitute some of these philosophies for proper rule application. This happens frequently when things "trickle down" from the pro and college levels of play to the HS officials. The point which we have been debating about (when to award FTs and when not to) definitely falls into that area. The pro rules support a certain way of handling this, the college assignors have their specific instruction--such as the PAC-12 issued last year (a desire for more FTs to be awarded), and the HS level has its own standard. There is a danger in taking a philosophy heard at a camp presented by someone from one level and applying that in a game at another level. I've been to several of those clinics/camps and spoken to numerous officials at the NBA, D-league, and NCAA D1 levels. They all have excellent advice to offer. However, one needs to do his/her own thinking and own reading to determine if what was just heard will be useful at the level that individual is working.

Another concern of mine is that just because someone is consistent in calling a play a certain way, doesn't make that person correct or accurate according to the given rules source. A great example of this took place a few years ago when it was obvious that several NCAA officials followed their personal philosophies that a player could not have a legitimate defensive position under the basket and called blocking fouls or nothing, when the correct call per the NCAA rules at that time was a charging foul. This eventually forced the rules committee to change the rule and now the NCAA has a version of the pro arc on the floor near the basket. This was definitely a philosophy that trickled down from the pro game to the college game, which was not supported by the NCAA rules. The danger now is that HS officials are doing exactly what these NCAA officials did a few years ago and ignoring the NFHS rules. That makes things confusing for the players and coaches at the HS level, and the NFHS has even issued a statement that using individual philosophies is improper (POE a couple of seasons ago).

[JRutledge]

I will just say this.

Everything I do as an official at the college level is pretty much the exact same thing I do at the HS level.

My main college supervisor is also the head clinician and rules interpreter for the state. The things he talks about that we need to do as it relates to calls are the same things he talks about in supervisor meetings.

I understand that people who primarily do HS basketball often think what we do at the college level is completely foreign. Actually almost all the directives from college like the "absolutes" that John Adams has mentioned in the past 3 or 4 seasons have been POEs in NF Rules.

Obviously there are some rules differences, but in basketball there are so minor or insignificant this is on the issue in this discussion. The wording for continuous motion is practically the same between college and HS. Both codes even use the term habitual movement or motion as an example of when the shooting starts.

Also the three leg philosophy is not a college philosophy. It is an officiating philosophy. I learned these years ago from a football official and heard the same thing said in a basketball meeting by another official. The rules are not always adequate to explain what should be done or promote consistency.

I must also make it clear that I am a State Clinician in Basketball as well. All the clinicians in basketball met in April and were given a video about situations and plays and many of the things we discussed and these kinds of things were discussed and philosophies used.

Now we are always going to have people across the country that will go to camps and here things or think that they hear things that are only that they will hear at a camp where they paid a lot of money to attend. Or they will hear something from an NBA official and think it does not apply to the level they are working. The basic game that we see at the NBA level is the same as college basketball, is the same we see at the HS level when it comes to contact and even philosophy with contact. Actually all the directives that the NF have used have been NBA philosophies and applications. Now watching the USA-Brazil game last night I am not sure that FIBA uses those same philosophies, but I digress.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How do players ever throw a pass in the games which you officiate?

You are new, so you will learn that this is a gray area, but what you wrote isn't accurate. The start of the act of shooting does not equate to the end of the dribble. The official needs to see some motion that indicates throwing for goal. (That can include pivoting movement.)

My point is that there needs to be more than just gathering the ball after the dribble.

To absolutely no one's surprise, I completely agree.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

2-man crew, I'm Lead, opposite from table side: A1 drives my side of the lane, parallel on the edge of the lane, after A1 gathers, fouled by B1, and the ball is released so late that it hits the back of the backboard. I call the foul and award 2 shots.
The opposing coach voices,"How can that be on the shot?! It hit the back of the board. It can't be a legit shot!"
I chose to ignore his comment. We proceeded with the free throws. There was no further comment from the coach.
What would you have responded? I thought that my non-response was best, in this instance.

'Coach, just because it hit the back of the backboard doesn't mean the player wasn't taking a shot."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

What would you have responded? I thought that my non-response was best, in this instance.

My standard response is "All he has to do is start the motion, Coach."