Ft, "t"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Continuous motion applies to personal fouls committed by the defense. If you blew the whistle before he released the ball, then the ball is dead. He still has two FTs coming.

Agree, but let's go to the rule, which includes the word "player", an important point in this situation:

"... but it (continuous motion) 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."

Of course, the coach is not a player, and he most certainly is not a player playing defense (didn't that cost Woody Hayes his job?).

[BktBallRef]

Thanks BillyMac for that distinction in this situation that had absolutely nothing to do with a foul by a player.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Thanks BillyMac for that distinction in this situation that had absolutely nothing to do with a foul by a player.

I was just "over" confirming your 100% spot on, correct post. I'm sure that some Forum members, especially nonofficials, may have, just for a second, incorrectly thought that the continuous motion foul would not have made the ball dead while he was in the habitual motion of shooting the free throw. I'm not embarrassed to say I had to give it a second thought before I made my decision. Maybe I was the only one, but I probably wasn't? So now it's confirmed, a foul on a coach, or a substitute, or a team member on the bench, is not included in the continuous motion rule. The continuous motion rule only applies to a defensive player, not a nonplayer (there are only ten players), and not a player on offense. Exactly what's wrong with looking deeper into the rule, getting a more general interpretation of that rule, and with seeing the actual written rule, even when one is agreeing with the poster? Excuse me for being thorough.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was just "over" confirming your 100% spot on, correct post. I'm sure that some Forum members, especially nonofficials, may have, just for a second, incorrectly thought that the continuous motion foul would not have made the ball dead while he was in the habitual motion of shooting the free throw. I'm not embarrassed to say I had to give it a second thought before I made my decision. Maybe I was the only one, but I probably (hopefully) wasn't?

So when your partner calls traveling in a game, do you confirm the call for the fans by also signalling traveling?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So when your partner calls traveling in a game, do you confirm the call for the fans by also signalling traveling?

No. The Forum isn't a game, and you're not my partner, you're a fellow Forum member. As a retired teacher, I'm always looking for a teachable moment, and I found one in the original post, and in your correct answer followup post.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Exactly what's wrong with looking deeper into the rule, getting a more general interpretation of that rule, and with seeing the actual written rule, even when one is agreeing with the poster? Excuse me for being thorough.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So when your partner calls traveling in a game, do you confirm the call for the fans by also signalling traveling?

No. But if asked by a player, coach, fan, or even by the police officer in the corner, who may have missed my partner's signal, "What did he call?", I will politely answer, "Traveling". In fact, now that I think about it, if I'm far enough away from the inquisitor, I may actually give a "low key" traveling signal.

[BktBallRef]

Thanks. I guess the 5 years before you got here, there must have been a lot of members who had their doubts about my posts. Glad you're here now to confirm everything I reply to.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Thanks. I guess the 5 years before you got here, there must have been a lot of members who had their doubts about my posts.

I liked your post. I agreed with your post. It was your post that helped me to decide what the correct interpretation was. I never doubted the intent of your post. I knew that, "by the defense", in your post, meant by a defensive player, but I just wanted to expound upon that a little, and include the actual wording of the rule (with the word "player"). I'm sure that 99.9% of Forum members that are officials fully understood your post, i.e., that you meant player, but I'm pretty sure that some nonofficial Forum members may have thought, even for a second, that the coach of the team on defense may have to be considered in the application of the continuous motion rule. In fact, the original poster may have had that question in his mind when his situation occurred:

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

Should I have give the FT shooter the first shot over again? I don't believe that the ball had left his hand when I blew.

I noticed that you went back and added something (that I also liked) to your post. Did you doubt something stated in your original post? Thinking that something in your original post may have needed further clarification? If not, why expound upon the original post?

As a retired teacher, one thing that I learned about teachable moments: Carpe diem (make use of the day).

You know what really makes this series of posts so odd? It's that BktBallRef, and, later, BillyMac, are both, I believe, by rule, 100% correct.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Even if BktBallRef is not an award winning former teacher with over thirty years of experience in the classroom, I'm pretty sure that as a former student, he must understand what a teachable moment is. Carpe diem.

Really? I'm beneath you, eh?

You know what, I'm not wasting anymore time with this. You're the reason I rarely post here anymore. Thanks for reminding me of that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Really? I'm beneath you, eh?

No. I'm just saying that it shouldn't only be teachers that understand what teachable moments are. You, in fact, may be a teacher. I fully apologize if any part of my original statement offended you. I will delete the part that I think that you found to be offensive. Debates? I enjoy. Offensive comments? I detest. That not how I like to roll here on the Forum. Ask anybody.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You're the reason I rarely post here anymore.

You post a good, agreeable, answer. Someone posts to clarify your answer for nonofficials, and you pick up your ball and go home? You certainly have a right to be upset with my offensive (not intended) post, which is why I deleted it, and apologized, but why deprive us of your presence on the Forum for simply agreeing with you, and clarifying something in a followup post (I'm not being sarcastic here)?

You didn't think the word "player" was necessary. I did. And for that we have to play Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots? Over one word?

If the roles had been reversed, I would have simply responded, "Thanks for the clarification", or maybe not responded at all.

[just another ref]

An award winning former teacher is probably familiar with the words inane and redundant.

jmo

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

An award winning former teacher is probably familiar with the words inane and redundant.

The original post seemed to question whether, or not, the "defensive" coach was involved with the continuous motion rule. Don't you think that a few others may have questioned the same thing? I was leaning that way, but I wasn't 100% sure until I read BktBallRef's post, and then looked up the actual wording of the rule. He was 100% correct. Coaches aren't players. Why not simply state that for nonofficials? Continuous motion only applies to the players on the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

An award winning former teacher is probably familiar with the words inane and redundant.

Science teacher, now an analytical chemist, not an English teacher. Which is why I'm so exacting, with precise, and accurate, descriptions of situations, events, rules, and interpretations. Maybe to a fault in officiating, but I get paid to be accurate, precise, and, yes, redundant, in my day job. Unfortunately, there is some carryover.

[johnny d]

Billy, precision is overrated. You can repeat the same thing over and over again and still be wrong. Maybe your equipment isn't calibrated correctly. Your measurements can still be precise and at the same time be nowhere near accurate.