"Continuous" issues...
 

I clipped these from some of the H.S. tournament games being shown on ESPN the past few days. IMO all five plays should have resulted in A1 receiving FTs but none of them did.

1. Thoughts?

2. This isn't to get on these officials. Watching the plays made me wonder if we, as a whole, adjudicate continuous motion as well as we should at the H.S. level and if not, why.


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/E-EB5VFDmZk?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Most def all should've been shooting fouls.

The only one I thought was even close was #3 - send them to the line!

None of those are close IMO...all in the act of shooting. If I'm one of the calling officials in the double whistle plays, I'm telling my partner that I have those fouls in the act.

Too many officials view these type of plays and ruling them in the act as "NBA calls" and automatically take the ball out of bounds.

I totally agree!

Agree on all 5. Additionally, calling officials in 2 and 5 are in terrible position to make the calls.

1, 2, 4, and 5 are certainly shooting fouls. 3 probably is but is the only one that may not have been at the time of the actual foul....too close to say on that one.

Without even looking at these plays, I can tell you that, in general, officials do a VERY poor job of determining when the act of shooting begins.

Saw an official in a Jr Hi game actually say: "Coach, she wasn't in the act of shooting because she didn't get the ball above her shoulders".....ugh!

The "continuous motion rule" is actually the same at all levels: NBA, NCAA, NFHS.

fwiw... I'll watch the plays now....

Just as I suspected.....ALL plays were incorrectly called (re:continuous motion).

All of these were incorrectly called. Sad, but that is what officials tend to do in these situations.

Peace

I can at least see an argument on #3 - though I still think it's shooting - but the rest seem pretty clear cut. Especially #5 - how that wasn't called a shooting foul, I have no idea.

1,2,3 send them to the line.

4,5 if the contact is during the shooting motion then send them. There is arms and pushing in both prior to any motion and on a patient whistle they may be going back and getting that.

Based on when the whistles occured in each though I'm sending them to the line.

So are we - as H.S. officials - worried we'll take grief for making "NBA calls?"

What bothered me even more about these plays is they're in the playoffs. I would assume - based on my own experiences - playoff officials have some level of college experience so they should have worked out the kinks on these calls.

I agree with the idea of forcefully suggesting to the calling officials that A1 was in the act ("Joe, you have her/him shooting?!"). Maybe it jolts them a little to realize what they should do. In #3 it would've been tough because the calling official (the L) was waving it off so emphatically. At any rate, all five had me shouting "What?!" :eek: when I saw them the first time.

The college thing would not be a factor here and honestly I see HS only guys love to wave off shots. And in my experience a lot of college guys around this part of the country (what they tell me) is they do not work a lot of HS ball at all.

Peace

1,2,4, and 5 for certain. On 3, looks like the shooting motion started after the foul.

I have to tell this funny story.

I was watching a couple of my playoff games this week online. One of the teams that we had twice was had their local radio commentators doing the broadcast along with the video. First of all they got my name wrong (kind of hard to do when I am the only Black person working in the entire regional and one guy was Hispanic and had an Hispanic sounding name) all week. And then when I had two fouls that resulted in shots being counted, they misrepresented what I had signaled. Now my signal might not be purely out fo the book from a look standpoint, but it clearly could not be anything else but counting the basket as my hand comes downward from a "foul signal" mechanic. They said about 3 times that, "He signalled to the floor." I just had to laugh and wonder how stupid they sounded when clearly I would go to the table and count the basket before reporting the number of the player that fouled. I guess the only conclusion other than pure ignorance on their part (and that was there all week) was that officials must be signalling to the floor often when they are not calling a shooting foul. I even had a foul in one of the games where I waved off a shot by waving my arms and they still did not "get it."

Fair enough. Again, I was giong on my experiences in my neck of the woods. Once we hit the QF in the NYC playoffs we start using 3-person crews. I can't think of the last time I saw an official on one of those games who didn't work a decent amount (15-20 games/season) of college ball as well.

On a different note: for those who think play #3 could be a non-shooting foul I'm curious as to why. Regarding OKREF's comment, her shooting motion may have started after she was hit but the habitual motion before the shot appears to have begun prior to the hit.

JRut, I do some b'casting myself (hockey and other sports if I can get them). I've always loved the "wait, it looks like they've changed the foul to..." comment. I always start screaming at the screen, "Um, no, they didn't change the foul! You guys just identified the wrong guy!"

All I have to say about these clips is :eek:

Wow, I just watched them. While 3 is close, I'm still giving her that shot. And the first three are all at the Iowa State Tournament (Final 8 teams of each class) in Des Moines.

Maybe once a season will I hear a coach ask "wasn't he/she shooting?"

More often, I hear, "Wasn't it on the floor?"

All but 4 look like shooting fouls to me. I think in #4 you might have a patient whistle there and the foul actually occurring on the feed pass.

If he's calling that "bump", he needs to be slightly more patient and let it go (IMO). Calling it after your inside beast has the ball and a 4-foot jumper just looks horrible. And you've rewarded the defense for poor defense. It's like calling the hack on the wrist in transition as the pass is landing in the hands of a wide open teammate, in stride, for a layup.

Yup all 3 look like they should be shooting foul shots. Also the last 2 are from me old alma mater in So Cal.

I agree with you completely here but my issue with the patient whistle is that it does have an expiration. Like the hack on the wrist. Do you wait to see how badly was the pass altered before calling the foul?

It depends on the contact and if there is a question that the contact affected the play. I would say sometimes yes. Just like you see a bump and you wait to see if the player falls or loses their balance.

Peace

Some people are questioning #3. It looks to me like she had "collected" was fouled and then completed the try. AND ONE in my book!

The gather was well before the foul on #3. Not even a question in my mind! Send her to the line. The shooting motion starts when the ball is gathered and the dribble has ended.

My opinion
 

#1, #2, #5 are definitely shooting fouls. The only thing I can see the officials ruling in #5 is he was passing the ball to the trailer, but I think the ball is "blocked" back to him, rather than passed back.

#3 Likely is because she is gathering to go up when the contact is made.

#4 I'm not as sure about, because it looks like the defender pushes the post player in the back before he even makes his pivot. If this is what the official calls (with a late whistle), then it is one the floor. If it was when he pivoted, which also definitely occurs, then it should have been shooting. It's either a late whistle or a bad call.

But there is no such thing. You are either in the shooting motion or you are not. It would help if we could ask the official and maybe that is what they saw, but I give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter when I can.

Peace

Sure, he was on the floor, but he was shooting. I would advise you to eliminate this phrase from your vocabulary with regard to calling fouls. Either you're misunderstanding the rule, or (more likely) you're using the term "On the floor" to mean "before the shot." In that case, what are you going to do when you call a shooting foul on the other end when the shooter was on the floor?

As for whether this was a late whistle. It probably was, but it's still a bad call, IMO. You don't want to get that push. And if you do, you have to get it fast. If you need to get this push because of previous actions that may escalate, a patient whistle is not your friend in that rare case.

First, "gather"/"collect", while we often use it as an indicator could just as well precede a pass. In #3, it wasn't clear to me that she had yet made up her mind on what she was going to do with the ball. She was going in a direction not exactly to the hoop, got fouled, then turned to the basket....almost as if I was an afterthought. I can't say she wasn't shooting and wouldn't criticize anyone who puts her on the line, but it is also not unreasonable to say she wasn't shooting on that one.

I agree with this. While I would have probably put her on the line, if she had consistently made this move prior to passing before this play, it's possible I could have considered this a common foul.

I tend to err on the side of free throws, though (except in the occasional little kids' games where free throws are not advantageous), so putting her on the line here would have been my call 99% of the time.

Well you focus so much on rules, but the rules do not say that we are to mind read. If the player did everything that looks like a shot, they are shooting. We have had this discussion before, but not sure how she does not look like she is shooting when she is taking on two defenders. It might be a bad shot, but it is still a shot. IMO that was the worst one not to call shooting.

Peace

I'll just say this...play 3 is a shooting foul EVERY single time in my game if I'm the calling official and honestly, it's not even close to me.

+1000

Peace

One of the problematic things to me on #3 is the L waved it off so quickly. There was contact and then the "no goal" signal came out immediately. He didn't give a chance for the play to finish.

Camron, I can see your point that she may not have made up her mind when the contact took place but if the L lets it finsh then takes in what happened he might end up with a different ruling. If she gets bumped then dumps it off to the trailer then, no, she's not going to the line. But in this case I don't think we should make a value judgment on the type or degree of difficulty of shot she was attempting to take. She didn't end her dribble, get bumped, hesitate then throw up a shot. She ended her dribble, got bumped and in one smooth motion went up with the ball.

Ditto what Adam said on #4. When I first saw the play I was shocked there was a whistle to begin with (there were a couple of plays like that involving the big kid). Black #14 would've needed help from his family to displace White #34 on a good day. Don't compund the problem by taking away a point-blank try at the basket from the tallest kid within a five-mile radius. If he misses the layup, that's on him.

1, 2, 3 and 5 are clearly shooting fouls IMO. #4 was the only debatable one for me. Based on the signal he's calling the pre-shot push on the entry pass, which IMO is not a good call. Was the big man really disadvantaged significantly by the defender's action? It sure doesn't look like it.

And I count #3 all day, with gusto.

I had a play like this a couple weeks ago. I counted it and the opposing coach couldn't believe it. I just said "she was in her shooting motion coach", He actually said, "but if you're calling the block it HAS to be on the floor" I don't think my snicker was audible.

Mine would have been.

:D :D :D

I'm seeing a trend in these plays, as well as others while I OD on H.S. playoff ball on the web.

*A1 gathers
*A1 has ball at his/her hips or below
*B1 commits a foul
*A1 doesn't get credit for continuous motion

It's as though the play stops for the calling officials if A1 doesn't have the ball in a "shooting" position when the whistle blows.

Me too.

The only comment I have is on 4. If the official inside is calling that weak little push as a foul against the big, then it's gotta come a bit quicker. If my whistle is that late, it's on the shot.

I take great pride in putting the shooter on the line every time I'm supposed to by rule. It's one of my pet peeves watching officials who don't.

Quite the contrary..that is exactly what we have to do many times. This whole no mind-reading mantra has gotten so twisted out of context. The only place it has ever been referenced is in the context of a ball thrown from behind the 3-point line that goes in.

When fouled, we have to decide what they were attempting to do at the time of the foul..not observe what they do after. They may not even get the ball to a point where it is certain, yet we must still judge what they were trying to do. How many times have you seen a player no where near shooting who turns and throws the ball at the basket after they realize they were fouled??

If they do what looks like a shot up to the time of a foul, they're shooting, even if they subsequently pass. If the only thing that looks like a shot is after the contact, they were not shooting.

We had this discussion before...some officiate it as you describe above. Some don't.

Some don't. Some do.

We penalize or reward actions that we witness. A player might be thinking that I am going to get into a fight, we do not penalize those thoughts. We penalize when they get in someone's face or hit someone. And when a player does everything that looks like a shot, even if it is a bad one, it is a shot. I do not think we are hear to say, "Well it was not a good shot, so we will award them something else even when they actually shoot." Sorry, but we do not do that and that is not how the rule is written.

Like I have said recently these are judgments. And if in your judgment is that this is not a shot because you feel you can "tell" they were not going to shoot until they did, go right ahead. But understand that is not the actual rule and not what the player actually did on this play. The ball handler did shoot and unless there was some contact before the ball was picked up, that is fine, but not what the official did on the play. The official waited for the ball to go in and then waved off the shot. Well if you clearly do not have a shot or shooting, then wave it off immediately to tell everyone you do not have a shooting foul. At least that would add credibility to what they saw.

You just want to push that same agenda you had before. That is fine, but these are two different issues on many levels. This player shot the ball and did nothing else. And if a player passes the ball because they see an open teammate I am not going to go on thinking, "You know, he might have been shooting." Not going to happen from me. If you want to do that in your game, go right ahead. But I have never heard an single evaluation that said not to do it that way.

Peace

My thoughts, ball had been gathered on all 5 plays. They either were shooting or passing...

I nver saw a pass so they had to be shooting. We should stop making it so difficult.

Really? If they shoot sometime after they gather the ball and get fouled, they must have been shooting???? You must allow some serious continuous motion!!!!

How long after the foul must they get the shot off to be considered shooting?...1 second, 2 seconds, 10??? Hey, I just got fouled, if I throw the ball at the rim, they'll send me to the line!!! :D

It really isn't trying to be difficult. There must be some cutoff after the foul and before there is actually a shot where the opportunity for it to be a shot is gone.

I don't disagree with this but as I mentioned before in #3 A1 gathers, takes the bump and keeps going up with the try all in one fluid motion. That's why I asked those who might have called that play a non-shooting foul to add to their thoughts. I honestly wasn't sure what they were/are seeing on the play.

I think if the try is an afterthought it's going to be one of those Stevie Wonder situations (formerly Ray Charles, as we called them) where it's so obvious that anyone would see it wasn't continuous motion.

Like someone throwing up a 40 foot shot near the end of the half/game when clearly they were not trying to shoot but threw up something to get the call or benefit of the doubt. This player was going right to the basket and I do not recall a teammate being around to pass it to. Players do not typically jump right around the basket to pass the ball.

Peace

I believe the saying goes something like this. If it looks like duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck! Let the athletes be athletes and reward them for making a play!

Since when did "getting the shot off" become a requirement to get awarded a shooting foul. :confused:

Gathering doesn't exist in NFHS. The rule is have they started their habitual shooting motion. During play 3, the foul happens and then the shooting motion begins. They offensive player did not start their shooting motion prior to the foul. In my opinion.

I honestly don't see how anyone can have play 3 anything other than a shooting foul.

Fair enough. Now here's my question: What's the habitual shooting motion prior to taking a runner/floater in the lane?

Would y'all consider this in the act of shooting? (For the record, I believe this is easily in the act):

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/f1ukvaC82XY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't see why officials look for reasons to judge a foul as non-shooting. And it seems they always make a big production of it when selling the call. They have to sell the call so hard b/c they are trying to convince everyone.

As officials we need to pay attention to what's going on in the game. If it's the 4th quarter and the guy who has put up 25 shots already is going to the hole and gets bumped after gathering his dribble do we really think he was intending on passing the ball?

The "on the floor" officials treat the play as if it were the best call of the game.

Yes. This is a shooting foul at all levels: NBA, NCAA, NFHS.

Exactly. If gathering the ball and starting your layup motion isn't part of the habitual shooting motion I don't know what is. "Habitual"=habit=what you always do; that is the motion that you do when you perform a layup/runner, therefore it is part of your habitual shooting motion.

The tough one is when the foul occurs on the rebound and the offensive rebounder takes the ball strait back up and scores. I've learned the hard way to have a patient whistle on that one. I hate having to reward the D by wipeing an easy bucket for the O and making them take it out of bounds. But I can't count the bucket and give them one because they weren't fouled on the shot.

I agree...I guess it was more directed toward those that thought play 3 was close.

For the record, the officials in the clip didn't rule this in the act.

My thoughts exactly when reading through this thread. All 5 plays are not close IMO.

And play #3 is so clearly a shooting foul in my book that I'm shocked to see people sayings its even remotely close.

As for the talk of a patient whistle on #4 I think thats a misapplication of the philosophy. If you are going to be patient then don't penalize the offense by then deciding to put air in it once they are in their shooting motion.

+1

Coach "he wasn't shooting"

He was attempting to but the foul prevented him

#3 I'd listen to an argument but she's in the act. In all cases a patient whistle would have had the correct call, especially 5. Calling official might be calling slight push, rather than see play through and make proper call.

When a player gathers a ball off a dribble where else are they going with it.

Great examples, thanks!

Nah, it's that crucial three second violation they get that's their best call.

Go back and look at what I said on page 1, post 7. I said that i probably is a shooting foul.

I'm just disputing the terminology and justification some are using to say it is. Those elements (gather) do not automatically mean shot when there are other options in the area. It might mean shot, but a pass or nothing is still a possibility.

And my post is surprise that it's close for some...that play isn't "probably" a shooting foul IMO...it's clearly and obviously during the act of shooting IMO.

Guess what.. I just went back and watch it again. I agree.

Me too.

At first viewing, I thought "shooting foul, but I could understand someone who disagreed." Watching it again, I don't think it's all that close.

Let's talk about something reasonably related to this:

When I see contact that likely rises to the level of a foul and I'm being patient and trying to decide whether to put a whistle on it, I'll hold off on the whistle until it's clear to everyone that I'm putting the foul on the shot.

Example: B31 has a hand on the hip of A22. It stays there, guiding A22 away from the bucket. A22 continues to drive and goes up with a shot. I could've whistled a foul anytime along this path, but I decided to hold it until it's clear that B31 isn't taking the hand off...by then, A22 is in the act of shooting. Shooting foul.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm looking for a reason to put it on the shot if I can -- surely I'm not the only one who does this. If I'm calling it before the shot, then it's pretty obvious and I do not feel the need to oversell this (to convince everyone, including myself, that the shooter wasn't shooting).

I do exactly the same. But if they get the hand off and they continue to the shot after it is gone, you really can't get both the foul and put them on the line. I'm only giving them that if there is fouling contact that continues into the shot.

If they get the hand off, then it's gotta be a quick decision on whether to pass entirely or go back to get the foul.

9 times out of 10, I'm probably passing entirely at that point. If it really needed a whistle earlier....

(And this is probably the kind of discussion that confuses newer officials and people that don't officiate.)

That used to be SOP in NCAAW. Then, a couple or three years ago, it became a POE (or at least emphasized at camp, if not an actual POE), to get the foul when it happens and not hold off for the shot on the drive.

So, that's what I try to do now. :shrug:

I do the same thing.

1. Borderline
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes
5. Yes

Where does habitual shooting motion start? On a drive it seems it is when the dribble stops and the player picks up the ball. Or catches ball moving to basket. I believe it us supported by rule


6.7 COMMENT:

If an opponent fouls after A1 has started to throw for goal, A1 is permitted to complete the customary arm movement; and, if A1 is pivoting or stepping when A1 or a teammate is fouled, A1 may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity, as long as A1 is still holding the ball.

Comment goes on to say if they dribble it ends the motion

Once they pick up the ball on a drive they have committed to pass or shoot. If thet did not pass they must be shooting...usual foot movement means the normal layup steps...