Continuous Motion/Traveling

bballref3966

A1 begins his continuous motion on a drive to the basket and is fouled. Before releasing the ball, A1 commits a traveling violation. The ball enters the goal.

Would the traveling violation cause continuous motion principles to cease, thus meaning A1 is not awarded any free throws (unless Team A is in the bonus)? Or would A1 be given two shots?

Multiple Sports

Break your play down into each individual occurrence....

Foul in act first....then travel....still must reward the foul and the penalty for the foul is.....

JRutledge

I do not think you can count the basket if it goes in after the travel, but I would reward the shots if they were shooting for sure.

Peace

bballref3966

Does the traveling violation fall under the parameter of “the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball”?

In other words, does the traveling cancel any benefit of continuous motion that the shooter would receive, i.e. free throws?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Multiple Sports wrote
Break your play down into each individual occurrence....

Foul in act first....then travel....still must reward the foul and the penalty for the foul is.....

JRutledge wrote
I do not think you can count the basket if it goes in after the travel, but I would reward the shots if they were shooting for sure.

Peace

The definition of Continuous Motion speaks of fouled player being allowed to finish any and all legal footwork. The player in the situation described in the OP has been fouled in the Act of Shooting and by rule the successful FGA is not counted and the fouled player is awarded two FTs.

When I think of the CM Rule I think of two plays:

1) A1 is fouled by B1 on his shooting arm and the foul does not impede his foot work and none-the-less he still travels before releasing the ball on his FGA.

2) B1's foul on A1 is of such that it causes A1 to travel before A1 can release the ball on his FGA.

By rule, in both (1) and (2) the FGA does not count and we award two FTs. But the foul in (2) and always bothered me because A1 traveled not of his own volition as in (1) but because of B1's foul and CM does not allow for any distinction between the two.

Just some food for thought.

MTD, Sr.

so cal lurker

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
By rule, in both (1) and (2) the FGA does not count and we award two FTs. But the foul in (2) and always bothered me because A1 traveled not of his own volition as in (1) but because of B1's foul and CM does not allow for any distinction between the two.

Just some food for thought.

MTD, Sr.

I think it would become awfully hard (and controversial) for refs to have to decide if the travel was "caused" by the foul.

JRutledge

so cal lurker wrote
I think it would become awfully hard (and controversial) for refs to have to decide if the travel was "caused" by the foul.

I do not think that is hard. That might be the reason you call a foul in the first place. If the illegal contact did not take place, you have to decided if that is the reason they traveled or lost balance to travel. I do not think it is that hard at all. I do it every game I call and make a judgment that is appropriate.

Peace

JetMetFan

so cal lurker wrote
I think it would become awfully hard (and controversial) for refs to have to decide if the travel was "caused" by the foul.

It's difficult but that's what the rule is. I misapplied it during a camp this summer and the observer called me on it. I rushed a bit after my whistle and blew past the fact A1 traveled once we were in the continuous motion portion of the play. Thankfully, it didn't affect the outcome and the observer was happy I knew I'd screwed up.

bob jenkins

bballref3966 wrote
Does the traveling violation fall under the parameter of “the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball”?

In other words, does the traveling cancel any benefit of continuous motion that the shooter would receive, i.e. free throws?

That question seems contradictory -- it contains two different concepts.

The travelling DOES negate the continuous motion -- any basket cannot count; there cannot be an "and-1" on the play.

The travelling DOES NOT negate the fact that the foul occurred during a shooting motion. Award two FTs.

BigCat

bob jenkins wrote
That question seems contradictory -- it contains two different concepts.

The travelling DOES negate the continuous motion -- any basket cannot count; there cannot be an "and-1" on the play.

The travelling DOES NOT negate the fact that the foul occurred during a shooting motion. Award two FTs.

i agree with number 1. if there is a travel there cannot be a goal. i dont agree so much with the second point. i think the issue here is whether the player who travels after contact was ever in the act of shooting. Just bringing the ball up could be a shot or pass. i look at the entire play to see what happens. im aware that the foul could prevent shot etc...i dont always make the determination of "in the act" at the moment of contact because at times i cant be sure.

i will error on the side of giving 2 shots but there's an argument that the player who does not release the ball within proper foot movements is NOT in the act....

bob jenkins

BigCat wrote
i agree with number 1. if there is a travel there cannot be a goal. i dont agree so much with the second point. i think the issue here is whether the player who travels after contact was ever in the act of shooting. Just bringing the ball up could be a shot or pass. i look at the entire play to see what happens. im aware that the foul could prevent shot etc...i dont always make the determination of "in the act" at the moment of contact because at times i cant be sure.

i will error on the side of giving 2 shots but there's an argument that the player who does not release the ball within proper foot movements is NOT in the act....

A basic assumption of this whole thread is that the player was in the act of shooting. If he wasn't in the act of shooting when he was fouled, then the ball is immediately dead and the "travel" never happened, much less any possibility of an "and-1".

Camron Rust

bob jenkins wrote
A basic assumption of this whole thread is that the player was in the act of shooting. If he wasn't in the act of shooting when he was fouled, then the ball is immediately dead and the "travel" never happened, much less any possibility of an "and-1".

Exactly!

If you deem, at the time of the foul, the player was in the act of shooting, it doesn't really matter what happens next. The player was still fouled in the act of shooting and the foul will be charged and penalized accordingly. Not being able to successfully (legally) complete the try doesn't change the fact that the player was in the act of shooting when fouled. Continuous motion only delays the dead ball in such cases until the try ends (shot missed), the ball otherwise becomes dead (travel), etc. A travel causes the ball to become dead immediately. If the ball becomes dead before it goes in the basket, it can't be counted. But, again, the player was in the act of shooting when the foul occurred, so they player will be awarded 2 shots.

BigCat

bob jenkins wrote
A basic assumption of this whole thread is that the player was in the act of shooting. If he wasn't in the act of shooting when he was fouled, then the ball is immediately dead and the "travel" never happened, much less any possibility of an "and-1".

my point is that there are many times that we dont know if the foul was in the act until we see what happens next. Assume im dribbling from wing down middle of paint and Camron is wide open in corner for three. i begin to raise ball, then contact. At that moment you dont know if im going to shoot the layup or pass to Camron. contact was minimal and i pass the ball to Cameron never looking at goal. i would not award 2 shots because even though i could have been in the act, the rest of the playh showed i wasnt intending to shoot.

in this case there is contact. is the player shooting at that moment? he isnt releasing the ball so we have to continue watching. he takes two more steps and then throws it up. clearly beyond legal foot movements. that tells me he wasnt shooting at time of foul.

bob jenkins

BigCat wrote
my point is that there are many times that we dont know if the foul was in the act until we see what happens next. Assume im dribbling from wing down middle of paint and Camron is wide open in corner for three. i begin to raise ball, then contact. At that moment you dont know if im going to shoot the layup or pass to Camron. contact was minimal and i pass the ball to Cameron never looking at goal. i would not award 2 shots because even though i could have been in the act, the rest of the playh showed i wasnt intending to shoot.

in this case there is contact. is the player shooting at that moment? he isnt releasing the ball so we have to continue watching. he takes two more steps and then throws it up. clearly beyond legal foot movements. that tells me he wasnt shooting at time of foul.

There shouldn't be "many times" that this happens. In fact, we should make that decision at the time of the foul every time.

And, FED has a case where a foul while shooting followed by a pass is still a foul while shooting.

Sometimes we need to officiate.

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
FED has a case where a foul while shooting followed by a pass is still a foul while shooting.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I would love to see this citation.

Camron Rust

bob jenkins wrote
there shouldn't be "many times" that this happens. In fact, we should make that decision at the time of the foul every time.

And, fed has a case where a foul while shooting followed by a pass is still a foul while shooting.

Sometimes we need to officiate.

thank you!

BigCat

bob jenkins wrote
There shouldn't be "many times" that this happens. In fact, we should make that decision at the time of the foul every time.

And, FED has a case where a foul while shooting followed by a pass is still a foul while shooting.

Sometimes we need to officiate.

A foul while shooting and then a pass, because of the foul is a shooting foul....as i said long ago. The question is ---was/is the player "in the act" at the time of contact. If you make that determination at the moment of contact then you , in my humble opinion, are not "officiating" as you said to me above. The ball moving upward can be a shot or a pass. As i said, i will error on side of shot but i will wait to see what happens next.

you are in effect declaring that any upward movement with the ball is a shot. that is not officiating...

Freddy

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
The definition of Continuous Motion speaks of fouled player being allowed to finish any and all legal footwork.. . .

RevisedAgain:
CM speaks of a fouled player, but that player need not be the one "allowed to finish any and all legal footwork".
The application of "Continuous Motion" is most often -- if not exclusively by most -- applied to the situation in which a defender fouls a player in the act of shooting.
However, I think it applies to a situation perhaps not as common but still likely to occur and in need of clarification, which I think 4-11 does well. It doesn't regard a foul against a player in the act of shooting as much as another player while a teammate is in the act of shooting.
Please hear me out.
What intrigues me about 4-11, "Continuous Motion", is that it does not seem to apply solely to a foul against a player in the act of shooting, hence a "fouled player there", though it certainly could, but to a foul that occurs "over there" by any defender while the act of shooting is occurring somewhere else.
Continuous motion answers the question "what is the result of the illegal action of a player against a teammate of a player in the act of shooting in another place at the same time", more than what happens when a foul occurs upon a player in the act of shooting.
The definition of "Continuous Motion" does not speak of a fouled player who is in the act of shooting. Yes, it could, and it certainly applies to that. But it seems more to refer to the disposition of the activity of the player in the act of shooting while a foul occurs by a defender upon another offensive player somewhere other than at the site of the act of shooting.
I realize I'm dealing with a major shift in paradigm here for many.
But. . .Make sense?
I see foul "over there" while a teammate is in the act of shooting, I think "Continuous Motion." Otherwise, if a foul is committed against a person making an attempt at goal, I think, "Act of Shooting."
You?
Or ought I take up curling?

Camron Rust

BigCat wrote
A foul while shooting and then a pass, because of the foul is a shooting foul....as i said long ago. The question is ---was/is the player "in the act" at the time of contact. If you make that determination at the moment of contact then you , in my humble opinion, are not "officiating" as you said to me above. The ball moving upward can be a shot or a pass. As i said, i will error on side of shot but i will wait to see what happens next.

you are in effect declaring that any upward movement with the ball is a shot. that is not officiating...

Not going to rehash this all again, but no, any upward movement is not automatically a shot. You have to officiate the play and make a decision. You base the decision on what you feel the player was doing (or trying to do) at the time of the foul. What happens next is not part of that decision. That is what the FED has specified.

BillyMac

Camron Rust wrote
... any upward movement is not automatically a shot. You have to officiate the play and make a decision. You base the decision on what you feel the player was doing (or trying to do) at the time of the foul.

Agree. It's not in any mechanics manual, but, on the close calls, once I come to that decision, I immediately announce it, loudly, at the site of the foul, "That's a shot", "That's a pass", or "No shot". I do this immediately, and loudly, at the site of the foul, because I don't want my partner, the players, the fans, and, especially, the coaches, to be surprised by my decision while I'm reporting to the table.