Continuation or not?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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, ) 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.