Honestly, Mark, this is all I read, and I can't think of worse advice to give someone. The NCAA makes the rules, so applying the rules as the NCAA says to apply them seems the prudent course of action.

As a non basketball official, I feel like you're being incomplete here. Imagine the case where A1 is posted up and ends his dribble intending to dropstep toward the endline and then lay the ball off the glass. He gets fouled from behind after ending his dribble so his pivot foot does not come up off the ground.
I really doubt that what you are trying to tell me is that he can sit there and pivot for the next 2 minutes and then shoot a layup. I think the word complete or continuous has to mean something here. And thus the play in the video could certainly be a common foul if the shooter held the ball long enough before going back up.
So what I really feel like you're saying is that the jump stop into the shot was all one motion. But that's not what your detailed text says where it suggests the only judgment is had the dribble ended.
But maybe I misunderstand you?

I'm not Teddy V. or J. Higgins, so I don't think that would be too good for my career...LOL

BTW, that new interp was in response to a "You Make the Call Video" in which at least one supervisor called out John Adam's for ruling 2 different plays as not being continous motion.

Adam:

You are missing my point. Look at the composition of the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees. Officials are almost completely non-existent on these committees yet officials are the ones that really are the experts on how the rules and interpretations work.

And whether some of us delve into the history of the rules and interpretations and why the language of the rule or interpretation was adopted in a particular manner (like me) or like all of us, we actually adjudicate (Junior loves the work adjudicate to describe what we do) the game per rules and interpretations on a daily basis, we have a legitimate claim to be the experts, more so than vast majority of the members of the Rules Committees.

It behooves us, as a profession, to take to task the Rules Committees when nonsense such as the second sentence in Comment in Play 2, which BadNewsRef graciously provided for the Forum Membership, is put upon us as a correct interpretation.

Yes, I am getting crotchety in my old age, :D, and I may be tilting at windmills but as Fred Horgan (a Past President of IAABO, long time Technical Representative to FIBA from Basketball Canada, and a member of the Canadian Basketball Hall of Fame) has always (yeah I know, J. Dallas Shirley) said (and I am paraphrasing here) that basketball officials are the keepers of the game. That means we are the keepers of the integrity of the game. When we do not challenge rules changes and especially interpretations that cannot be defended by rule, it is our responsibility to challenge incorrect interpretations and to insure that correct ones are issued.

Now it is really is time for my post-lunch nap, :D.

MTD, Sr.

I agree with you. But it is hard to follow that interpretation when everything I have been taught goes against that way of calling these plays.

And the fact this was addressed mid-season is a bigger problem.

Peace

Most definitely agree. My first game after the interp I worked with 2 very good friends, and we discussed whether or not to follow the new interp or just call it like we always had.

BNR:

And I hoped you continued to call it correctly, ;).

MTD, Sr.

Mark, you completely missed my point. "Correctly" is simply the way those in charge of your particular level/game want it called. Anything else is just obstinance, and being "right" can get you fired.

Adam:

This is not a game of tag.

When an interpretation is announced and it is incorrect because the rules do not allow for such an interpretation it is the responsibility of officials to address the problem with the powers that be, especially in the case of basketball officiating where officials (the real rules experts) are practically non-existent on the rules committees. The members of the rules committees can stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels but that does not make an interpretation that cannot be defended by rules a correct interpretation.

I do not doubt the rules knowledge of college officials especially the way the rules have become so convoluted as they are today, especially with regard to POIs, TFs (both administrative and non-administrative), FF #1, FF #2, and timing situations (both shot clock and game clock). But real problem is that college officials (especially Div. I officials) could exert tremendous pressure on the rules committees to produce rules that are written better and correct interpretations and approved rulings.

There was a time when the vast majority of the men's supervisors of officials for all of the Div. I conferences were former Div. I officials. They wrote the CCA Manual for Officiating Mechanics. Why? Because officials are the experts with regard to mechanics too, not just rules.

You are young, and are at an excellent point in your career to start studying the history of the rules and mechanics and become even better at this than me. Maybe become another Al Battista (a personal friend of mine too), who is even better a historian of the rules than even me.

MTD, Sr.

You should ask Al what happened that caused the new interp to be issued.

I will write Al this week. We go way way back. LOL Even though he is younger than me. Come to think of it everybody is younger than me except Mark Padgett. LOL

MTD, Sr.

I Can't Wait ...
 

I volunteered for Unified Games this coming Friday afternoon. It's the only time my supervisor allows me to leave work early for a basketball game.

The last sentence in the Comment, is self-cotradictory, and appears to be an oversight in its script or structure. The common usage of such sentence structure would be: "This act of shooting motion includes, but is not limited to: picking up the dribble, catching (gathering) the ball, or advancing on the court with one or both feet." Such statement would align the interpretation/comment with generally accepted understanding of the concept being discussed.
JMHO

Rooster, John Adams' vide comments have made it clear that they want it called differently now.