Continuation or not?
 

Missouri Valley Conference.
Loyola vs Bradley
Can we get the video of the foul by Loyola with 4.5ish in the game? Is it a shooting foul? If so, then continuation? It was late and I had the volume low. The official originally counted the basket and then they disallowed the points. they shot 2 free throws. They were in the double bonus that was the 13th foul.

Some of you may be able to browse to the play (0:4.8 second half) here: ESPN3 -- Loyola-Chicago vs. Bradley

I think they properly fixed it. The player was coming down into a jump stop when he was fouled.

And...what a finish!

video added
 

Here's the play...


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/e8mrjK0DgKs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If the NCAA is going to define the start of the act of shooting to be when the player begins his upward movement with his hands and arms (as I have argued for on this forum several times over the past few years vs those who have been going with the moment that the offensive player gathers the ball), then this foul was clearly prior to the act of shooting.

So, if it's a High School, then do we have "continuous motion"?

I have a carry prior to his last dribble.

No because the foul was while he was in midair on the bounce, i.e. the habitual throwing motion hadn't begun.

NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's rules are the same. This is a Casebook Play of continuous motion. W-1 is in the air when he ended his dribble by catching the ball in both of his hands (this is the start of the Act of Shooting). Before W-1 returned to the floor he was fouled; at this point W-1 is allowed to complete any legal foot movements associated with releasing the ball. W-1 returned to a jump stop and then jumped again to release his shot. Score the basket and shoot one free throw: NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's.

I would have never allowed myself to be talked out of this call. By reversing his call the official allowed the defense a great advantage over the offense to which it is not allowed by rule.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. The cock-a-mamie upward motion rule does not apply to the play.

A foul committed by a defender as a player is coming down into a jump stop qualifies (to you) as the start of the habitual throwing motion?

I'm as liberal of a person as there is at trying to put a foul on the shot, if possible, but I'm not going that far. A shot can certainly follow a jump stop, but so could a pass. To me, we haven't gotten to the start of the habitual throwing motion yet. The foul is before the shot.

Show me a case play that changes my mind.

I think this is a non-shooting foul. And the main reason I say this is he never shot the ball while committing a jump shot and that was clear by the action after the jump stop was completed. I am very liberal about giving shots but this clearly was not part of the motion, despite the gather.

Peace

How is it different, by rule, from a layup where we consider continuation from the "gather"?

I think you make a great point. I think that we would need some clarification if this would include the performance of a jump stop. And I am starting to lean in your direction on this. Not sure why I was not making that point also, but I just know what I have done in the past and why.

Peace

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

BNR, can you post that for us?