In the act of shooting?
 

A1 rebounds the ball and begins the habitual motion to shoot. B1 grabs A1's arm. You have a whistle at this point for a foul. A1 gives up on that attempt then makes a legal step through move to the basket and makes a bank shot.


How do you handle this play?

Note: You deem A1 to be in the act of shooting before his arm is grabbed. The step through move was a separate act of shooting.

I think you can answer your question. The step through isn't continuous motion, it is another move after the whistle. If anything, you can tell A1 to stop on the whistle?

It's still a shooting foul if the contact prevents release of the try. I agree with Tom that the second move is an independent try (with a dead ball).

It would have to be pretty clear to me that initial try was aborted before I'd wave off the shot and give two free throws.

Fair enough. I was taking that part for granted/not challenging the OP's judgment of that particular question.

I agree that, if in doubt, it was continuous motion.

Agreed, and I wasn't intending to challenge his judgment on this particular play. The rule is clear, but then again, so is the rule for multiple fouls.

According to the philosophies of many on here as expressed in another recent thread, that would not be a shooting foul at all since he didn't continue to shoot after the foul but made another move prior to actually shooting. :eek:

I don't agree with them, however. :D

I can't help but chuckle. :D

Tongue in cheek I know but that's a misrepresentation of what those of us on that side of the argument are saying.

Easy answer to the OP is two shots.

Only if he had stepped through and passed the ball :D

Only somewhat. I'm just exposing the inconsistency in that philosophy. It is merely that some just don't want to make rules-based decisions and would rather take the easy road based on what the fans/coaches expect instead of the right road.

I think that in some of the cases, it's not the easy road they are trying to take, but rather retroactively justify whatever they said first so they can never be wrong --- rules be damned.

It doesnt expose any inconsistency at all nor is it about taking the easy road or doing something that is not right by any stretch of the imagination.

But no need to hi-jack this thread to an issue that's already been discussed.

I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. But it sure doesn't seem to resemble anything to do with that previous conversation.

Sure doesn't to me either...plus I thought we weren't supposed to bring "rules" into these conversations, so how can they be damned?

Hmm...

Sometimes, someone says something that is flat wrong. They are called on it - but through stubbornness or refusal to be wrong, they continue to insist they are right, regardless of what people say or of what the rules state for that matter. They are not taking the easy road or making a lazy ruling - they are just refusing to listen to logic.

Now ... um, what exactly is this requirement that my response must resemble some previous conversation? You've thrown me there. If my response (IN this thread, and TO something said in this thread) happens to line up with something said in a previous thread... great. If it doesn't ... so what? I believe my comment was more general than you seem to be assuming it to be.

Feel better? :rolleyes: