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

Here's the play...


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dn2ySek_FeU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't care if he switched hands, that's a shooting motion.

Yep. I'm a bit surprised there was ever a question.

Clearly he was in the shooting motion.

I do think, however, that the question that was asked did not question that it was a shooting foul, just that the shift to the left hand ended the motion and the try negating the subsequent made basket.

That was indeed the point. The decision is between awarding two FTs or the basket and 1 FT. Declaring this to not be a foul in the act of shooting at all was never a thought.

Upon review of the video, it appears that the player collected the rebound with his right arm, brought the ball into both hand and jumped to shoot, was fouled, and then removed his right hand/arm from the ball and finished the attempt with his left hand. I'm fine with this particular play being judged continuous motion and the basket counting.

Another discussion which we can have would be if the player went up with the ball only in his right hand, was fouled, and then switched it to his left hand before releasing the try. Someone else mentioned the famous Jordan play, which would be a good visual for this action. Should this be considered continuous motion or a new try after being fouled during a previous attempt (or perhaps while not in the act of shooting at all). That's the academic debate this play made me consider.

Huh? Shooting foul all the way.

Peace

I think that, at a minimum, as long as the shooter remains in control of the ball, that it should be part of the same motion. It would only be if control was lost that the try might end....as in when a defender knocks the ball away but the shooter somehow grabs it again and puts it in. That may a new motion. And even then, I, I'm not so sure I wouldn't count the shot.

I would still consider that apart of motion if they were in the air and was able to maintain some level of control. As a matter of fact there was a play reviewed here that was just like that and I recall most people here said it was a good call to award shots. This play in the NC game was nothing like that situation.

Peace

The question isn't about awarding shots but how many (or alternately, whether to count the basket). Does the try end or does it continue? It is a shooting foul either way.

I say the try continues, count the basket, 1 shot.

The play I was talking about, the player lost the ball and while in the air, caught the ball with both hands and shot the ball and the ball went in the basket. One FT was awarded too.

When I get home I will look for the play and see if I can post it. Or maybe it was a play where APG's account is locked up on YouTube. I just remember this play because I used it in a meeting to be discussed.

Peace

I remember a similar discussion where a player was fouled in the air, lost control of the ball, regained control, and completed his layup.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/nP1hyf9zAaA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And here's the thread discussing the play:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...-3pt-play.html

I don't think you count the basket here.

Does it matter to you if the ball is moved from one hand to the other by having both hands touch it briefly in the transition or if it is tossed through open space from one hand to the other?

That is what I am talking about APG. ;)

I still think this is apart of the shot. Maybe if he lost the ball on the and came back to the floor, but nothing suggest the shot is over because it was out of his hands.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I asked earlier where you draw the line. Ball is released, try is over. Is airborne shooter allowed extra consideration, and if so, how much. I added the part about the board as an obviously over the top example. But you said if he can make it go in, it counts. PERIOD So accept my apology about the remark. How do you draw the line on this?

Doesn't matter.

If they're able to get a shot off before they land, then it is one try.

After the release of what? Do yo think that he released it on a try? I don't think that was what he did. I think he bobbled the ball (perhaps caused by the defender or not).

Since it was not a try, there is no try to end (yet).

Two Trys, No Basket, Two Free Throws ...
 

Opinion? Sounds like a factual citation to me. In my high school, game, the try ends, and he gets two free throws. You college guys can do what your supposed to do in a college game, like maybe count the bucket. I know more about this week's opposition of Mars, than I know about NCAA basketball rules.

Uh, Camron, if the try has not yet begun, then we can't have continuous motion from the foul.
PS watch out for BillyMac to post an image of Yoda!

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

NFHS 4-41 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP
ART. 1 The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try
or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne
shooter.
ART. 4 The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the
throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball
becomes dead.

I agree, but it's going to have to be very clear to me that there was a momentary loss of control before I wave off the shot and give him 2 FTs. I don't see how continuous motion can include a loss of control, but changing hands wouldn't be enough for me to wave it off.

I'm good with the changing hands, but we're talking about the play now where the ball was clearly caught out of the air after the contact.

I would counsel those of you who would count the goal in either the switching hands scenario or the temporary loss of control situation to take a few moments to consult the text of the rules for continuous motion. There are some very specific terms and phrases used therein, which don't mesh with scoring a goal in either of these instances.

NFHS Rule 4, Sec 11
ART. 1

Continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.


ART. 2

If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she 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.


Notice "habitual throwing movement", "complete the customary arm movement", and "usual throwing motion."
Do any of those phrases apply to the actions of a player switching the ball from one hand to the other or regaining possession of a ball and shooting?
Can you really state that the player finished his customary arm movement or that such is his usual throwing motion?

I guess what I really meant was "throw" because that is what is used in the definition of how the try ends. If the player hasn't yet thrown the ball, is there a throw that can be deemed unsuccessful?

Absolutely. By including foot movement and pivoting in the definition of continuous motion, they have told is that the window of continuous motion can include a lot of action. Moving from hand to hand seems to be very inline with those principles.

I tend to agree, however, with your conclusion on a ball that is knocked away from the shooter. That seems like a new attempt to me.

Most definitely. Seen plenty of players ball fake one way and switch to the other hand for a scoop shot.

So is a player who is fouled while pump-faking in the act of shooting? Is the fake part of his trying motion, which the rule permits him to finish?

This is not a good comparison. It is a judgment call whether the try has started. By calling it a pump fake, you are telling us it has not. In this thread, it is a given that a try has started. The question is whether the try ends and another try starts or whether the try has simply been altered. I'm in the camp which says a player who maintains control may do anything necessary to complete the try after contact, but once the ball is released, voluntarily or not, it cannot be caught again and be part of the same try.

Not necessarily. But if the player is in the air, I'm not considering any of their movement a fake. The will be in one motion from the time the jump (and likely before) until they release the ball on a try or land.

What does being airborne have to do with the act of shooting prior to the release?
Are you saying that you would give an airborne player more "rights" than one who is in contact with the floor?

Most players who are in the act of shooting do become airborne prior to the release.

Not more rights but the time period they could possible remain airborne is so short that I think it could only be considered part of one motion. A player not airborne might be in motion just as long, or longer.

The verbiage in Article 2 indicates that when the player loses contact with the ball, the attempt must be considered as having ended. My conclusion would be that to move the position of the ball from right hand to left, while still maintaining contact - (still holding the ball) - such as in the 1st video -the shot is still valid. But as seen in the 2nd video, the attempt must be considered as having ended, and 2 shots would be appropriate.
JMO

While an unusual situation, I thought that it would be worth discussing with the forum members and reflecting upon.

What stands out to me in the case of a player switching hands after being fouled is the text at the start of the second article: "If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, ..."
Can we really state that the player had already started his try before being fouled when the ball was actually in his other hand? I guess I just don't see how a player can start his shooting motion with one hand and finish it with the other. That certainly isn't "customary" or "usual."

I'm a washed up men's league player, and I can do this move. Certainly good HS players and above can as well.

For the NCAAM officials in the house...
 

Regarding the Miami/Wake Forest play from Feb. 2013, was there any comment from John Adams on Arbiter at the time in terms of whether the play was called correctly? If there was and it's still up would you be able to post it?