Kentucky/UConn Continuous Motion (end of 1st half foul) (video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

By definition, a try ends when it is certain that it will not be successful. There is contact here, after which the ball is released and headed down, not up. It is certain at this point that the ball has no chance to go in. The try is over. The catch and subsequent release is a new try, in my opinion.

NCAA officials will never call this play the way you want it interpreted. You're more likely to see the blarge ruling changed than this.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

NCAA officials will never call this play the way you want it interpreted. You're more likely to see the blarge ruling changed than this.

A couple of things: First, this is a play that is very rare. I'm not sure I've ever seen it before. Second, where do you draw the line on it, then? Ball is out of his hands, then he catches it and shoots again. What if the ball hit the board? Could he then tap it in? What's the difference?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A couple of things: First, this is a play that is very rare. I'm not sure I've ever seen it before. Second, where do you draw the line on it, then? Ball is out of his hands, then he catches it and shoots again. What if the ball hit the board? Could he then tap it in? What's the difference?

Knowing the common sense difference on such things is often the discriminating factor that allows one person to get hired and another not to get hired.

You may not agree with that line of thinking, but folks who have aspirations of becoming (and staying) an NCAA official learn or get left behind.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Knowing the common sense difference on such things is often the discriminating factor that allows one person to get hired and another not to get hired.

So this is another case of: Here's what the rule says but here is how we call it. Something which is a pretty play and at the same time is not blatantly illegal to the untrained eye and at the same time benefits the offense should be allowed.

If this is done consistently, I don't have a big problem with it.

[Rich]

If he's in the air (and is an airborne shooter that is fouled) and can make the ball go in the hoop without returning to the floor I'd be inclined to score the goal. Period.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

If he's in the air (and is an airborne shooter that is fouled) and can make the ball go in the hoop without returning to the floor I'd be inclined to score the goal. Period.

Does this mean you would let him tap it after it hit the board?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Does this mean you would let him tap it after it hit the board?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? You had to know what I meant in my post.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So this is another case of: Here's what the rule says but here is how we call it. Something which is a pretty play and at the same time is not blatantly illegal to the untrained eye and at the same time benefits the offense should be allowed.

If this is done consistently, I don't have a big problem with it.

From what I've seen, it's called consistently. Like you said, it rarely happens.