I do not totally disagree other than there is not line of demarcation. And that is why the gather is often used. Either way if it is not defined, officials will rule all kinds of ways. This philosophy keeps us more consistent IMO.

Peace

Anything that gets officials to think the shot starts earlier is fine by me. Too many obvious shooting fouls get called "on the floor." One of my big pet peeves.

I am going to jump into the middle of the conversation between Nevada and Rutt; and I apologize if my post is slightly long. Who am I kidding everybody on the Forum knows I am the best at making a short story long, :p.

The definition of Continious Motion has been the same literally word-for-word for over fifty years (going back to the Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada Rules Committee) for both the NFHS Boys'/Girls' and NCAA Men rules committees (When the the NCAA stopped using NAGWS Rules in the mid-1980s and formed its own Women's Rules Committee it adopted the definition used by the NFHS and NCAA Men's rules committees.). That said, Rutt is on the correct path.

First, the word "gathering" should not ever be used; it sounds like a word that a radio or television announcer would use.

Second, let us look at the following play:

A1 (who shoots right-handed) is dribbling fast and hard towards Team A's basket. A1 ends his dribble by catching the ball with both of his hands while both of his feet are not in contact with the playing surface. The definition of Traveling describes what A1 can and cannot do to avoid committing a Traveling Violation before A1 either: (a) released the ball on a pass to a teammate; or (b) released the ball on a Field Goal Attempt.

If A1 is fouled by B1 at any time during (a) it is obvious that the foul by B1 is a Common Foul. It is play (b) that has been a problem for officials for years and years and years. But in (b) B1's foul against A1 is a foul committed while A1 is in the Act of Shooting; because the definition of Continuous Motion tells us that A1 can complete any legal foot movement between being fouled and releasing the ball for a Field Goal Attempt it is obvious that A1's actions to end his Dribble was the beginning of his Field Goal Attempt.

I am not a proponent of the "patient whistle" school of thought. I am a propoent of the "see the whole play" school of thought. Both (a) and (b) above are good examples of "seeing the whole play" school of thought. If one sees a foul by all means put air in the whistle but see the whole play.

MTD, Sr.

I think the concept of a patient whistle is more to gather more information and try and determine what is actually going on and/or was going to occur. Officials that blow the whistle very quickly also tend to get tunnel vision into going into the routine.

foul...report...move on - and fail to make the correct call. However if you see a foul and instead of putting air in the whistle right away hold off for a half second or so you may end up passing on the call or assigning the a different punishment than what you would have had you blown early.

We see fouls all game and don't call them, which is what "passing" on a call means. It means I saw the contact but didn't deem it necessary to call a foul. Most noticeable example. Rebounder gets bumped from behind but has the rebound clearly - pass. The same bump causes a travel or turnover - foul. Same contact, different outcomes, different action by the official.

We really don't have to use the term "passing" on a call given the definition of a foul/incidental contact:

The first example is someone who wasn't hindered from performing/participating in normal defensive or offensive movement. By rule it isn't a foul.

I call it "passing on the contact". Saying "incidental contact" confuses some coaches. :D

You should consult 4-11-2 more closely because you have this backwards.

According to the rule the player is only entitled to complete his customary foot and arm movement IF he has already started his throwing motion prior to being fouled.

You seem to advocate that the player is in the act of shooting simply because he has started his customary footwork before eventually throwing for goal. That is not true.

Furthermore, ending the dribble is not the beginning of a field goal attempt. It is merely an action which precedes it. The start of a FG attempt is some kind of throwing motion as stated in the rules.

Agreed. Obviously, a player has to end the dribble, catch or gather the ball before throwing it....whatever terminology you use. It is something that "habitually precedes release of the ball." 4-41-3. However, we have to look also at 4-41-1 and -2 along with 4-11-1 and 4-11-2 as has been cited above. Those sections reveal that not everything that "habitually precedes release" means a player is in act of shooting. Player has to be in a "throwing" motion as Nevada says.

Just playing devil's advocate, but what if the "throw" was indistinguishable from a dribble? What if the "shooter" dribbled hard enough on the last dribble that the ball bounced high enough (off of the floor) to enter the basket from the top... and actually went in?

In this situation there is never any upward "throw." There is no catch. no gather, just the last dribble downwards.

If this player were fouled would you award free throw(s)? If you do award free throw(s), the interesting bit would be exactly when would the foul need to occur in this "shot" process?

What you have described is a "dribble." If there is a foul at any time before the ball goes in the basket the ball is dead. no goal. no free throws unless in bonus.
Now, if after that last hard dribble, I jump up and try to tap the ball in, the moment my hand touches the ball the "tap" has started. If you foul at this point or after it is a shooting foul. Again, anything before is not a foul in act of shooting. It was a dribble....thx

That is not a shot attempt....would not even be a consideration.

I appreciate your responses. I agree that this is not a traditional shot attempt.

But the interesting thing is it is not even that difficult to become proficient "shooting" this way.

So since you do not consider this activity shooting, do you award the points from such a basket to the team, or the shooter?

While the previous posters are entirely correct in their conclusion, they didn't provide the why. It is in the definitions. Even IF you were to consider this action as an attempt to score (it isn't), the try ends the moment the ball touches the floor. Anything after that is just a ball that goes in....and it who it is attributed to is actually beyond what the rules cover. As for why it isn't a try to start with, a try is defined as throwing the ball into the basket, not bouncing it in.

See 5.1.1 in case book. covers exact situation. Points awarded to player who last had ball in that play. He or she is not a "shooter" in your example.

P.S. bouncing ball into the basket is hard....in "horse" when you have time, no defense etc. If you or anyone else can be proficient at it in a game then you have a future with the globetrotters:)

Here is another issue the video has raised with me:


When we blow the whistle sometimes we look to see what the player does with the ball after the whistle to determine if he or she was in act of shooting. We know that 4-41-2 says the ball doesnt have to be released to be a shot because the foul could prevent the release. In this video i think most of us agree that 15 white didnt do much, if anything, to be a foul or do anything to "prevent" offense from making whatever play she wanted.

lets say in this video the offensive player, after the whistle and within proper steps, wings the ball to the corner to another player for open 3. In that situation the foul was not in the act of shooting-imo. ball out of bounds or bonus FT. I hope we all agree on that...?

My question/issue with this play---(some have said she traveled so cant count the basket but can give her two shots because she was in the act of shooting) If you assume the whistle was blown and then she traveled of her own volition--not bumped or caused to do it, does that not prove that she really wasnt in the act of shooting at the time she was fouled? or by rule not in the act? saying another way, if the person fouls you but does not affect your foot movements or ability to shoot in any way...do you have to release the ball without travelling to be considered in act of shooting? If i pick up the ball, start to raise it to the goal, you foul me but not prevent me from releasing it, then i take 3 more steps before actually releasing it are you going to give me 2 shots?

let me know what you think. If you cause me to travel/prevent me from releasing it that is one thing. But if i dont release the ball within proper foot steps etc then i cant give myself 2 shots...thx