Mark, the new upward motion moment is the same, per NCAAM, as the start of continuous motion.

You have not read this entire thread, nor clicked on the link in one of my previous posts.

I referee NCAA-Men's basketball, I keep up with the bulletins.

The first signs of early onset dementia, or maybe you didn't read the link BNR posted, because it is exactly about the play in the OP.

BNF and everybody else: I am sorry for the long post but it is worth reading, ;-).
 

BNR:

Let me first address the early signs of dementia: I am 62 years old and Art Hyland is 72 years old. It should be remembered that Art Hyland was a three year varsity letterman in basketball at Princeton University where he graduated in 1963, and the Continuous Motion (CM) rule was the same (in both H.S. and college) back then as it is now.

For well over fifty years, the National Basketball Committee of the United States of and Canada (NBCUSC and the predecessor committee to the NFHS and NCAA rules committees), NFHS, and NCAA Men's/Women's rules committees position with regard to CM is that A-1, who is dribbling the ball, cannot Try for Goal while dribbling the ball, but A-1's Try for Goal does start the moment A-1 ends his dribble, and when a foul by Team B occurs after A-1 has started his Try for Goal, A-1 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."

The play (in the video) we are discussing is a classic example of CM.

Let us remove the foul from the play. We have A-1 ending his dribble with both feet not in contact with the court. A-1 then choose (with the help of Theory of Gravity, :D) to return to the playing court with both feet touching the court simultaneously; he then jumped into the air (both feet leaving the playing court) and releasing the ball for toward Team A's basket. A-1 did this in one continuous motion starting from the moment that he stopped his dribble by holding it in both hands while he was airborne.

Now let us add B1's foul of A-1 after he has stopped his dribble. The Rules Committees wrote the CM rule in such a manner to keep the Defense from committing a foul that would keep the shooter from finishing his Act of Shooting motion. That means that if A-1 is dribbling then CM does not apply and if A-1 is not dribbling then CM does apply.

Yes, I did read your link. Play 2 in the link does not apply to the play being discussed in this thread. The second sentence in Play 2 is: "B1 fouls A1 as A1 picks up his dribble." We already know that the Rules Committees are on record: An Offensive Player in Control of the Ball either is dribbling the ball or is not dribbling the ball, meaning that there is no in between. In Play 2 A1 is dribbling ball when he is fouled by B1, therefore CM does not apply in Play 2.

The last sentence in the Comment that accompanies Play 2 troubles me greatly because it shows that the author does not understand CM and the philosophy of the CM rule. The last sentence says: "This act of shooting motion does not include but is not limited to picking up the dribble, catching (gathering) the ball, or advancing on the court with one or both feet."

First, the sentence uses the term Act of Shooting, and while the Act of Shooting and the Try for Goal start simultaneously, CM applies to Try for Goals and Free Throws.

Second, the second part of the sentence makes no sense:

(a) "picking up the dribble" is a layman's term and does not define whether or not a dribbler has ended his dribble.

(b) "catching (gathering) the ball": "Catching" means the dribbler has ended his dribble; this has been an accepted description that a dribbler has ended his dribble for as long as I have been a basketball official. On the other hand "gathering" means whatever it means, but does not, nor has it ever, accurately described a dribbler ending his dribble.

(c) "Advancing on the court with one of both feet". I still am trying to figure out what the heck the author of the comment was trying to say because every player on the court is using one or both of their feet to advance "on" the court.

Thirdly: I do not what more I can say. The weight of history and the proper application of the rules are on my side. And while I am ten years younger than Art, I will bet dollars to donuts that I knew and understand the history of the rules better than Art does. And to my knowledge Art has never officiated a basketball game.

MTD, Sr.

Anyone got Art's email address? John Adams changed his mind about that Kansas-Texas play last time Mark emailed him.

I appreciate the history lesson. You very well may have history and the proper application of rules on your side. However, at least as far as NCAA-M basketball goes, that means absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, whether he is right or wrong, Art Hyland is in a position of authority when it comes to making these rulings, whereas you are not. Thus, anybody interested in officiating NCAA-M basketball will follow the edict handed down by Art Hyland until such time he can be convinced it is incorrect.

What is most distressing is the fact that Art is an lawyer. Why is that important? Language! The meaning of words and what words are used to craft a contract, an appeal, or legislation. If Art is the author of the "upward motion" in this year's rule change or the last sentence in Play 2's Comment then he should be ashamed because he either allowed or used language that was so vague as to be absolutely useless.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. And he is still incorrect and I am correct. :D

Well Mark, I never made a comment about dementia, so you are addressing that to the wrong person. ;)

Secondly, I've always been liberal in judging CM, so you are shooting at the wrong target.

Thirdly, my only relationship with Art Hyland is that I read his memos. And is memo on CM is what I have to adhere to, not history.

MTD,

I don't see this play any differently than a rebounder "gathering" the rebound and getting fouled on his way DOWN to the floor even though I know that he is going right back up to shoot as soon as he lands. The rebounder gets fouled before the throwing motion has started.

I don't see any thing that would meet the "usual throwing motion has started" if a player is fouled on the way "down" on a jump stop.

Too Busy To Read A Newspaper ...
 

Hey Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: It's no longer a theory, it's a scientific law. You were probably too busy inventing basketball rules in 1687 to read about Isaac Newton's discovery.

What was the significant difference?

Billy:

Come on, you are a chemist and I am a structural engineer. We both know what is the scientific definition of the word "theory".

MTD, Sr.

BNF:

First: My dementia remark was a humorous retort to a previous post by another member which was a humorous in nature also.

But on a more serious note to everybody in the Forum about dementia. Everybody knows that I am the first one to use self-deprecating humor about my age (and Mark and BillyMac are the first to pile on, LOL): "I am a bald old geezer." Both of my sons will affectionately refer to me as the "bald old geezer" because I resemble a "bald old geezer" and now-a-days I am a "bald old geezer". And Junior, if he needs to get my attention (because at my advanced age it tends to wander when I am on the Bases, :p) when we are umpiring a baseball or fast pitch softball game he will call out "old man" to get my attention because for some reason I never hear him call out "Dad!" but I do hear him say "old man".

And, I have officiated Special Olympics basketball for over 25 years (Forum Member Daryl H. Long has been officiating it as long as I have) and Junior joined us when he started officiating, and we have been umpiring S.O. softball for five years. Furthermore, my uncle's (my father's older brother) wife suffered from Alzheimer's Disease; this was in the late 1970's when virtually nothing was known about the disease.

I am not advocating (I am a staunch defender of the First Amendment) self-censorship or censorship but dementia can be a hot button issue for some people. Alzheimer's Disease is not the only disease the deals with dementia or diminished mental capacity. I would like to ask everybody to remember that a person can acquire a diminished mental capacity in any number of ways and we should be aware of it. I am sorry if I made turned this post in a depressing direction.

Second: One cannot be "liberal" in judging CM. The definition is quite clear, either A-1 has stopped his dribble before he was fouled by B-1 or he was still dribbling when he was fouled by B-1; there is not in between ("gathering the ball", whatever the heck that means. When I have a foul by B-1 against A-1, who is dribbling toward the basket, I have only one decision to make: Did the foul occur before or after A-1's dribble end? If the foul occurred before A-1's dribble ended, then the ball is dead immediately. If the foul occurred after A-1's dribbled ended then CM applies and I let A-1 complete any legal foot and body movements to either pass the ball or attempt a Try for Goal; if A-1 passes the ball, the ball becomes dead immediately upon the release of the pass, and if A-1 releases the ball for a Try, then the ball remains alive.

Once again, Play 2, does not describe the play in the video we are discussing in this thread. And I have already stated that from the poorly worded description used in Play 2 I would have ruled a Common Foul (CF) by B1.

Third: As I have stated before, one cannot use layman's terms that have no meaning within the rules in attempt to undo a rule that has been in place for over fifty years. The rule allowing the Offensive Player to complete any usual foot and body movements is to prevent the Defense from committing a foul that will nullify an Offensive Player's legal right to attempt a Try for Goal.

As I have already stated before, let us look at the play in the OP of this thread. A-1, in one continuous motion, ends his dribble while airborne, lands simultaneously on both feet, then immediately jumps off both feet, and then releases the ball for a Try for Goal. This is all legal foot movement by rule.

Furthermore, excluding an Interrupted Dribble, an Offensive Player in control of the ball can be only be in one of two states: (1) He is holding the ball, or (2) He is dribbling the ball. There is no in between. If he is dribbling the ball then he is still dribbling the ball until he ends his dribble. CM has always meant that when a player is dribbling the ball, the habitual motion for the start of a Try is when his dribble has ended. Gathering the ball tells me nothing as to whether A-1 did or did not end his dribble. Catching the ball does tell me when A-1's dribble ended.

If we allow a foul by Team B anytime after A-1 has ended his dribble and before he releases the ball for a Try for Goal to nullify A-1's Try for Goal, then we would also have to nullify A-1's Try for Goal, if after he ends his dribble while airborne, in one continuous motion, lands on his right foot, then jumps off his right foot, then lands on his left foot, then jumps off his left foot, and then releases the ball for a Try for Goal, if B-1 fouls A-1 any time after he ended his dribble.

Fourth: I retired from officiating college basketball after the 2007-08 season, but that still does not mean that I do not try to keep up on things. The troubling aspect is that we as officials allow the NCAA to keep putting out such slipshod and patently incorrect Interpretations and Approved Rulings. No one with any knowledge and history of the rules is doing any vetting of these pronouncements.

I am done for the day. I missed both my post-breakfast nap and my pre-lunch nap in order to write this post, :D.

Mark, Jr., is at work (6am to 2pm), and has a girls' JrHS basketball DH in Michigan late this afternoon; I promised him his gear would be ready when he got home and before I leave to pick up Daryl Long to attend a H.S. fast pitch softball umpires meeting in Findlay, Ohio (and of course we will have dinner before the game and discuss at least one softball rule so that the dinner is tax deductible, :D). Time to have lunch and then have my post-lunch nap, :D.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, for those who currently work NCAA-M's at any level, this is the relevant part of the interp:

"Comment-The language of 5-1.10, “The try starts when the player begins the motion that normally precedes the release of the ball”, refers to the hand(s)/arm(s) in preparing to release the ball on a try for goal. Examples of the act of shooting motion includes raising the ball with the hand(s) and/or arms to shoot a layup or jump shot or the downward motion of the hand(s) or arm(s) in completing a dunk or alley-oop play. This act of shooting motion does not include but is not limited to picking up the dribble, catching (gathering) the ball, or advancing on the court with one or both feet."
"

BNR:

The language in the Comment is an perfect example of what I mean when I say that the person who wrote it does not know or understand the rules and it was not vetted by someone who does. CM applies to a Try for Goal; it does not apply to the Act of Shooting. The second sentence is a farce, that per rule has no meaning. The person who wrote it should be ashamed of his or her ignorance of the rules.

Read my the ninth and tenth paragraphs of my post of 11:22amEDT. Applying the second sentence of the Comment in Play 2 to the plays that I described in the paragraphs that I mentioned above would be absolutely ludicrous.

Do not blindly accept the garbage that the NCAA Rules Committees is adopting. It is time for the the active officials to call out the NCAA Rules Committee when it adopts garbage and to demand better of the Rules Committee.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Time for my post-lunch nap, :D.