Jump Stop + Foul

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the issue the OP wished to raise was a discussion of continuous motion, then I don't believe that this will end up being so clear, following some discussion.

First the text of the rule:
"If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she is permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or *stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight."

My personal opinion aside, a good case can be made that the player was stepping while being fouled and completing the jump stop should be considered the usual foot or body movement in such a case. Just because it is a rare situation doesn't mean that it isn't covered by the rule.

For those who support awarding FTs (or counting a goal) for a player who is fouled while gathering the ball and then completes his stepping movement prior to following through with his attempt for goal, what is the difference here with the jump stop?

I'm with you -- I'm not all that sure it's clear cut.

I'm half tempted to bang it home just to hear everyone scream, "He wasn't shooting!" Hell, they all do it when it's obvious he's started a try for goal.

[Sharpshooternes]

I think that it is a charge or a no call. Defender has two feet down in the path facing ball handler, definitely before the shot. Defender looks like he tries to sell the contact from this angle. Ball handler attempts to go around defender with the jump stop.

How can it be a block on the secondary defender? He sure didn't do anything wrong. If the foul was on the primary defender with a push or some thing than it definitely is not continuation but I don't see anything foul worthy from that player either.

For discussion sake though, if you had the exact same play with a euro step instead of the apparent jump stop, it is defiantly a shooting foul. But I think I am with the majority that say action before the jump stop is not continuation but a foul after the jump stop most defiantly would be continuation.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the issue the OP wished to raise was a discussion of continuous motion, then I don't believe that this will end up being so clear, following some discussion.

First the text of the rule:
"If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she is permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or *stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight."

My personal opinion aside, a good case can be made that the player was stepping while being fouled and completing the jump stop should be considered the usual foot or body movement in such a case. Just because it is a rare situation doesn't mean that it isn't covered by the rule.

For those who support awarding FTs (or counting a goal) for a player who is fouled while gathering the ball and then completes his stepping movement prior to following through with his attempt for goal, what is the difference here with the jump stop?

If I thought this was a block I'm scoring the bucket here.

It looks like a PC to me though.

And if you come out of this play with a travel......... No bueno for the assignors I call for.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

If I thought this was a block I'm scoring the bucket here.

It looks like a PC to me though.

And if you come out of this play with a travel......... No bueno for the assignors I call for.

It's a good discussion that could come out of this post -- did the L do a good job of refereeing the defense on the secondary defender?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Does your state consider the play where the offensive player stops his dribble or catches the ball with both feet off the ground a jump stop? If so, they are wrong to insist that the player has to have both feet land simultaneously for the jump stop to be legal.

We have been instructed, at a camp, by staffers, any jump stop in which both feet don't land simultaneously, is a traveling violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

We have been instructed, at a camp, by staffers, any jump stop in which both feet don't land simultaneously, is a traveling violation.

johnny is right, though. This is only a travel if the ball is gathered prior to the jump rather than gathered in the air.

[ballgame99]

If that dribbler clearly ends his dribble before take off (I don't think he did in this case), then I could see a travel there. There is a lot going on in that play, and for the lead to ascertain when the dribble ended, if the defender had LGP, and whether the jump stop was clean, all in the span of .5 seconds, I will cut a guy some slack if he doesn't see the feet.

I don't see that contact being signficant enough to be a PC, although he did appear to be in LGP. He flops a bit anticipating more contact than ended up happening. Therefore this is a no-call for me. But if you have a block here I see it as a shooting foul. If he was doing a euro step it is clearly a shooting foul, so why not on a jump stop?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

If that dribbler clearly ends his dribble before take off (I don't think he did in this case), then I could see a travel there. There is a lot going on in that play, and for the lead to ascertain when the dribble ended, if the defender had LGP, and whether the jump stop was clean, all in the span of .5 seconds, I will cut a guy some slack if he doesn't see the feet.

I don't see that contact being signficant enough to be a PC, although he did appear to be in LGP. He flops a bit anticipating more contact than ended up happening. Therefore this is a no-call for me. But if you have a block here I see it as a shooting foul. If he was doing a euro step it is clearly a shooting foul, so why not on a jump stop?

I think people say "flop" when they mean something else entirely. This is not a flop.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

We have been instructed, at a camp, by staffers, any jump stop in which both feet don't land simultaneously, is a traveling violation.

well, if you gather the ball in the air, and then land with the feet one-two, it's not a jump stop, so I guess the statement is correct.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

well, if you gather the ball in the air, and then land with the feet one-two, it's not a jump stop, so I guess the statement is correct.

Thank you. Someone finally got it.

[APG]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Thank you. Someone finally got it.

Everybody got the statement...I just find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't think what was show in the video wasn't simultaneous. At least for me, it has to be more obvious than that for me to judge it not being at the same time.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think people say "flop" when they mean something else entirely. This is not a flop.

Embellishment?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

Everybody got the statement...I just find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't think what was show in the video wasn't simultaneous. At least for me, it has to be more obvious than that for me to judge it not being at the same time.

I find it hard to believe anyone can claim much of anything for THAT video. It was like watching TV through a frosted glass window.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by APG

Everybody got the statement...I just find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't think what was show in the video wasn't simultaneous. At least for me, it has to be more obvious than that for me to judge it not being at the same time.

It's close, either way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I find it hard to believe anyone can claim much of anything for THAT video. It was like watching TV through a frosted glass window.

Agreed. I couldn't tell either way from the video. If the official had called a travel, I wouldn't be able to argue with him.