Continuation or not?

[JetMetFan]

Clarification Alert!!!

My anonymous NCAAW source - whom I trust and who would definitely know these things - tells me the play in this thread should have been ruled continuous motion. Reason = in this case "it is one move to the basket."

The video I saw on the NCAAW site last year was a similar play but not exactly the same. My apologies for any confusion.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Clarification Alert!!!

My anonymous NCAAW source - whom I trust and who would definitely know these things - tells me the play in this thread should have been ruled continuous motion. Reason = in this case "it is one move to the basket."

The video I saw on the NCAAW site last year was a similar play but not exactly the same. My apologies for any confusion.

I can't believe anybody doubted the interpretation I gave in my OP.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

I really don't see a foul in the OP at all.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I can't believe anybody doubted the interpretation I gave in my OP.

MTD, Sr.

I can't believe you are ignoring that this is a NCAA-Men's game, and a new interp on habitual shooting motion was put out this year.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I can't believe you are ignoring that this is a NCAA-Men's game, and a new interp on habitual shooting motion was put out this year.

Because the new interpretation had nothing to do with a foul during this type of play.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Because the new interpretation had nothing to do with a foul during this type of play.

MTD, Sr.

It sure does. He got fouled prior to bringing the ball up into a shooting motion.

Still, all this would be irrelevant had they called him for palming.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It sure does. He got fouled prior to bringing the ball up into a shooting motion.

Still, all this would be irrelevant had they called him for palming.

Bad News Ref:

The new rule change (which I think is an idiotic change made by people who do not have a clue as to why the Guarding and Screening rules were written the way they were written in the first place) pertains to a defensive player attempting to Establish a LGP before the player in Control of the Ball goes airborne, but that is a discussion for another day. That was not the case in this play: But Continuous Motion does apply in this play; an offensive player is allowed to finish any legal foot movement after being fouled prior to the release of the ball for an attempted Field Goal.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Bad News Ref:

The new rule change (which I think is an idiotic change made by people who do not have a clue as to why the Guarding and Screening rules were written the way they were written in the first place) pertains to a defensive player attempting to Establish a LGP before the player in Control of the Ball goes airborne, but that is a discussion for another day. That was not the case in this play: But Continuous Motion does apply in this play; an offensive player is allowed to finish any legal foot movement after being fouled prior to the release of the ball for an attempted Field Goal.

MTD, Sr.

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

By in season interp, the rule is no longer the same for NCAA-M.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

BNR, can you post that for us?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

NCAA-Men's Habitual Shooting Motion

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Bad News Ref:

The new rule change (which I think is an idiotic change made by people who do not have a clue as to why the Guarding and Screening rules were written the way they were written in the first place) pertains to a defensive player attempting to Establish a LGP before the player in Control of the Ball goes airborne, but that is a discussion for another day. That was not the case in this play: But Continuous Motion does apply in this play; an offensive player is allowed to finish any legal foot movement after being fouled prior to the release of the ball for an attempted Field Goal.

MTD, Sr.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Because the new interpretation had nothing to do with a foul during this type of play.

MTD, Sr.

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

[ronny mulkey]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The video I saw on the NCAAW site last year was a similar play but not exactly the same. My apologies for any confusion.

What was the significant difference?