Chaminade (MO) vs. Paul VI (VA) (HS Basketball) (Video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If my memory serves me correcty (and sometimes it doesn't anymore, ), there was a long thread discussing this A.R. last year. The discussion centered around the sentence: "B1 fouls A1 as A1 picks up his dribble."

The question was: What does "picks up his dribble" mean? We know (NFHS and NCAA) that a Player that is dribbling the ball cannot be in the Act of Shooting. A1 must end his dribble befofre the Act of Shooting can begin. Many of us thought the wording in the A.R. was poor, but that the A.R.'s Ruling implied that A1 had not ended his dribble before he was fouled therefore he was not in the Act of Shootng. What Camron is saying (and it is not my intent to put words in his mouth) and I concur that the NCAA A.R. is consistent with a Player being fouled before ending his dribble has not been fouled in the Act of Shooting which both NFHS and NCAA Rules tell us.

It should be further stated that there is more than one way for a Player who is dribbling the Ball to end his Dribble: 1) touching the ball simultaneously with both hands; 2) catching the ball with both hands; and 3) touching the ball with one hand and then the other hand before the ball returns to the floor, are just a few ways for a Player to end his Dribble.

MTD, Sr.

We have been explicitly told that "raising the ball with the hand(s) and/or arms to shoot a layup" needs to happen for it to be considered continuous motion.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

We have been explicitly told that "raising the ball with the hand(s) and/or arms to shoot a layup" needs to happen for it to be considered continuous motion.

Whoever is telling you that is just flat out wrong. And you can quote me too him. The NCAA Rules Committees moved the Act of Shooting Definitions from Rule 4 to Rule 5 (I do not know why) some years ago, but they have not changed in the last 50 years (both NFHS and NCAA). The NFHS and NCAA Men's and Women's defintions of Continuous Motion are the same.

The phrase in red was the NCAA Men's Rules Committee's ill fated attempt (due to lack of understanding of the defintion of Guarding) last school year to limit Defender's right to Establish a LGP against an Offensive Player who was dribbling toward the his basket and has since been recinded for this school year. It was part of the definition of Guarding, not the Act of Shooting or Continuous Motion definitions.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Whoever is telling you that is just flat out wrong. And you can quote me too him. The NCAA Rules Committees moved the Act of Shooting Definitions from Rule 4 to Rule 5 (I do not know why) some years ago, but they have not changed in the last 50 years (both NFHS and NCAA). The NFHS and NCAA Men's and Women's defintions of Continuous Motion are the same.

The phrase in red was the NCAA Men's Rules Committee's ill fated attempt (due to lack of understanding of the defintion of Guarding) last school year to limit Defender's right to Establish a LGP against an Offensive Player who was dribbling toward the his basket and has since been recinded for this school year. It was part of the definition of Guarding, not the Act of Shooting or Continuous Motion definitions.

MTD, Sr.

First name "John", last name "Adams". Lives in Indianapolis I believe. Has a buddy named Art Hyland.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

First name "John", last name "Adams". Lives in Indianapolis I believe. Has a buddy named Art Hyland.

I know who they are I don't care if they stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels. They cannot, by Rule, Casebook Plays, and Approved Rulings for at least the past 50 years, defend their postion. They are starting to take stupid pills from the Women's Rules Committee and parroting the opinions of coaches (and fans) who have no knowledge and understanding of the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I know who they are I don't care if they stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels. They cannot, by Rule, Casebook Plays, and Approved Rulings for at least the past 50 years, defend their postion. They are starting to take stupid pills from the Women's Rules Committee and parroting the opinions of coaches (and fans) who have no knowledge and understanding of the rules.

MTD, Sr.

And this will help me in my game tonight how?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And this will help me in my game tonight how?

What it means is that officials need to stand up and start asserting themselves as a group and call out the yahoos that are making these stupid rulings.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What it means is that officials need to stand up and start asserting themselves as a group and call out the yahoos that are making these stupid rulings.

MTD, Sr.

You have my vote and my backing. Let me know when the campaign will begin.