Shooting Foul? (Video)

[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.

[deecee]

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by deecee

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:

NF 4-19: A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements.

2013-15 NCAAM & W 4-21-3: Contact that does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements shall be considered incidental.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

[Adam]

We're all adults here, but I locked it anyway.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...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.
...

MTD, Sr.

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[xyrph]

Originally Posted by BigCat

...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?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by xyrph

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by xyrph

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?

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

[xyrph]

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by xyrph

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by xyrph

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?

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by xyrph

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?

It's not that we do not consider this activity shooting or that's it not a traditional shot attempt, it's that a try or shot is defined in the rule book, and your scenario comes nowhere close to meeting the definition.

Remember, this an official's forum, we are rules based. Most of us played basketball and are aware of all the playground situations and tricks, but we have to put that stuff behind us as officials.

As far as points being awarded, we only care that points are awarded to the proper team.