Shooting Foul? (Video)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

i dont know about nba and it is end of july so i havnt read a book since april. im getting old. where does nfhs say the gather counts as part of the habitual motion etc?

Same place it says this:

Originally Posted by BigCat

i need to see some movement up before i give her two.

The habitual motion doesn't have to be upward motion. Many times, on a layup, it's a dip. It's whatever habitual movement precedes the shot.

Originally Posted by Adam

It's whatever habitual movement precedes the shot.

Like, for example, the "gather" which ends the dribble and typically precedes a shot?

[OKREF]

I watched the video again, I'm changing my mind. I'm giving 2 shots. She is starting the shot as she gets fouled. However, I'm still sticking by a gather doesn't mean shooting motion.

[Nevadaref]

We had a long thread on this several years ago immediately after the NCAA stated that officials were not awarding FTs for fouls committed during the act of shooting properly and that after a player had gathered the ball fouls should be deemed in the act of shooting. NCAAM subsequently changed again a year or so later to the upward movement standard.
The NFHS has never had such a directive. I stated in the thread way back then that some sort of motion with the arms that indicated the start of an attempt to try for goal was necessary at the NFHS level. Simply ending the dribble is not enough as a player could also be passing or just coming to a stop. There has to be some movement after that point make the official believe that a try has begun.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We had a long thread on this several years ago immediately after the NCAA stated that officials were not awarding FTs for fouls committed during the act of shooting properly and that after a player had gathered the ball fouls should be deemed in the act of shooting. NCAAM subsequently changed again a year or so later to the upward movement standard.
The NFHS has never had such a directive. I stated in the thread way back then that some sort of motion with the arms that indicated the start of an attempt to try for goal was necessary at the NFHS level. Simply ending the dribble is not enough as a player could also be passing or just coming to a stop. There has to be some movement after that point make the official believe that a try has begun.

Well that is not what the rules says. It says the habitual throwing movement starts a try. So how do you determine that other than the moment you gather the ball? Your arms are not necessarily going to go up to make a shot. True you could pass, but if they are not shooting, they can do something that looks like a pass. But even the casebook has a play that says if you are prevented from releasing on a shot, we are still to consider it a pass. But like many things these are philosophies as much as anything. I just do not agree that we cannot determine if they are shooting if they are fouled right after the gather.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that is not what the rules says. It says the habitual throwing movement starts a try. So how do you determine that other than the moment you gather the ball?

As posted earlier, this is what the rule says, "These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started..."

I concur that the key is how one defines "usual throwing motion" or "habitual motion." I disagree that it is just gathering the ball. It is definitely something more.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As posted earlier, this is what the rule says, "These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started..."

I concur that the key is how one defines "usual throwing motion" or "habitual motion." I disagree that it is just gathering the ball. It is definitely something more.

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

[Rich]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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, .

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.