Continuous Motion (video)

[just another ref]

First play he traveled before the release.

Second play I don't see a foul.

[OKREF]

I'm counting both baskets.

[STFD]

Thanks for posting the clips

I'm counting both baskets although, like others have said I don't have a foul on the second. On the first play, I don't think the official should wait so long before waving it off. If he's not going to count it, do so immediately. Don't wait for the ball to bounce around the rim and go in. Just my opinion.

[APG]

Count the basket in both plays

[Freddy]

Help me with this.
Play #1 seems more a matter of "act of shooting", i.e. whether or not the player began "the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball" than a matter of "continuous motion."
Is it not correct that continuous motion is reserved for when a foul occurs which prohibits the release of the ball but the continuous motion the player whose act of shooting had begun must be considered so that the proper two FT's be awarded though the ball never got "in flight" due to the foul that occurred while in the act of shooting?
One reason I'm tending to think in this way is that Rule 10 PENALTIES, though specifying conditions where "act of shooting" determine whether one or two FT's are awarded, "continuous motion" is never mentioned as a consideration in any case.
I'm trying to keep "continuous motion" and "act of shooting" as each defined by Rule 4 seperate, though obviously related.
Seems to me that "continuous motion" is becoming sorta an umbrella term describing any foul committed while a player is in the "act of shooting", and I'm struggling with whether that is a good thing.
Any help for my understanding?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Help me with this.
Play #1 seems more a matter of "act of shooting", i.e. whether or not the player began "the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball" than a matter of "continuous motion."
Is it not correct that continuous motion is reserved for when a foul occurs which prohibits the release of the ball but the continuous motion the player whose act of shooting had begun must be considered so that the proper two FT's be awarded though the ball never got "in flight" due to the foul that occurred while in the act of shooting?
One reason I'm tending to think in this way is that Rule 10 PENALTIES, though specifying conditions where "act of shooting" determine whether one or two FT's are awarded, "continuous motion" is never mentioned as a consideration in any case.
I'm trying to keep "continuous motion" and "act of shooting" as each defined by Rule 4 seperate, though obviously related.
Seems to me that "continuous motion" is becoming sorta an umbrella term describing any foul committed while a player is in the "act of shooting", and I'm struggling with whether that is a good thing.
Any help for my understanding?

NFHS 4-11-1

Continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

First play he traveled before the release.

Second play I don't see a foul.

Even if he traveled it's still would be a shooting foul. Wave off the basket and indicate 2 shots.

Either way you don't stand there watching the ball bounce around the rim before waving the shot off.

[JRutledge]

Travel really? SMDH!!!!

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Both are shooting fouls.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Travel really? SMDH!!!!

Peace

The only thing that shocks me about your response is it took so long I had the same reaction to the post as you.

JAR, I have the dribble ending when A1 put both hands on the ball which would make him legal. Where do you have the dribble ending?

Originally Posted by BLydic

Thoughts? My first was "showcase" and my second was "time and score".

My first thought on play #2 was "Don't go fishing in another man's pond." C had a better look at that play and let it go, so given it wasn't a felony offense...let it go.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The only thing that shocks me about your response is it took so long I had the same reaction to the post as you.

It took so long because I had a scrimmage this morning for football. I am honestly not shocked it was pointed out, but I cannot believe that even a travel was even an issue.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It took so long because I had a scrimmage this morning for football. I am honestly not shocked it was pointed out, but I cannot believe that even a travel was even an issue.

Peace

I agree. I see absolutely nothing in that clip that would make me think travel. Not even close.

The shot should have counted, no question about that either.


In the second play, I don't have a foul at all....but if there was one, the basket should count.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In the second play, I don't have a foul at all....but if there was one, the basket should count.

That is why I called it possiblity a "game interrupter." People do not like the term, but it seems like nothing prevented the player from movement or opportunity to complete a play.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The only thing that shocks me about your response is it took so long I had the same reaction to the post as you.

JAR, I have the dribble ending when A1 put both hands on the ball which would make him legal. Where do you have the dribble ending?

his left foot is on the floor when he puts both hands on the ball. it returns to the floor before the release.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

his left foot is on the floor when he puts both hands on the ball. it returns to the floor before the release.

That is not even close to accurate. A supervisor would not be too happy if you tried to defend that judgment.