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?

I believe I have the answer from the NCAAW side of things based on a in-season video we received last year. The jump stop turns the move into two separate acts. The first is before the player lands and the second is when they start to rise again. By definition if you stop your motion can't be continuous. In the case of a layup it's (usually) all one move.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the rule would be the same in NFHS.

That's exactly how I see it. If someone can find a case that says something else, I'm all ears. But I've always called a foul on a jump stop (coming down) like this.

I wanted to make that point too. But I didn't want to be labelled "That Guy". There are way too many that would love to chew me up and spit me out when I am the only one out on the limb.
I now have MTD sr and Adam (maybe Rut) seeing things the same way as me.
This is also the 1st time I have seen the call reversed. Has anyone ever seen/had the call changed from 'on the floor' to 'in the act of shooting'?

Without a case play or interp, I don't know. I think for me it would depend on just how "continuous" the motion was. I know I'm likely to wave off the shot, but I don't know that the rule supports it.

You don't have me coming to your side. You are coming to my side. I would have written my OP the exact same way in 1971 because the rule has not changed since at least the 1962-63 season.

MTD, Sr.

In NCAA-Men a jump stop also eliminates RA restrictions for secondary defenders. And, of course, we already have the new interp concerning the beginning of the habitual shooting motion.

Initial thoughts when viewing the play live, probably the same as on court official. After replay, don't see anything to change my mind based on what MTD said. NBA/E it's definitely shooting

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. :D

MTD, Sr.

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

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. :cool:

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.

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.

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.

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.