Rule Question

Kajun Ref N Texas

B1 pushes A1 into A2 as A2 is in his habitual shooting motion, but has not yet released the ball. Does the foul make the ball dead immediately and therefore, no shot; or since A2 started his shooting motion, do we count the bucket and assess the foul? Is the answer different if A2 had released the ball?

JRutledge

Continuous motion applies to any opponent fouling the team in possession of the ball. So yes you allow the shot to be completed and you award points accordingly.

If the ball is released you are not going to not allow the shot to be completed. The ball is not dead because of a foul after a released try. This applies even if A4 commits a foul.

Peace

Kajun Ref N Texas

JRutledge wrote
Continuous motion applies to any opponent fouling the team in possession of the ball. So yes you allow the shot to be completed and you award points accordingly.

If the ball is released you are not going to not allow the shot to be completed. The ball is not dead because of a foul after a released try. This applies even if A4 commits a foul.

Peace

Thanks.

This play can be seen on a front page ESPN.com video story on Donaghy entitled, "Details of Donaghy's inside job." It did appear that they counted the bucket.

JRutledge

Understand that the NBA rules might be a little different. I am referring to NF/NCAA rules. I have no idea what the NBA rule may or may not be. I do not imagine this particular rule would be different, but anything is possible.

Peace

Kajun Ref N Texas

JRutledge wrote
Understand that the NBA rules might be a little different. I am referring to NF/NCAA rules. I have no idea what the NBA rule may or may not be. I do not imagine this particular rule would be different, but anything is possible.

Peace

Agreed. I really could care less about the NBA rules. I saw the play on the video and wondered to myself what the NFHS rule was.

Adam

Kajun Ref N Texas wrote
Thanks.

This play can be seen on a front page ESPN.com video story on Donaghy entitled, "Details of Donaghy's inside job." It did appear that they counted the bucket.

So, they got the play right, and ESPN is using it as evidence that he was on the take? I am so surprised.

question without seeing the play. Did the actual foul occur before the shooting motion started? It doesn't matter when A1 contacts A2, it only matters when B1 contacts A1 in relation to A2 starting his shooting motion.

JRutledge

Snaqwells wrote
So, they got the play right, and ESPN is using it as evidence that he was on the take? I am so surprised.

question without seeing the play. Did the actual foul occur before the shooting motion started? It doesn't matter when A1 contacts A2, it only matters when B1 contacts A1 in relation to A2 starting his shooting motion.

I do not know that this was used quite that way. I think they were showing plays where Donaghy involved. I did not think there was any implication that this particular play was involved in a betting scandal. This was one play in a montage of plays where they show Dongahy making a call or on an NBA Court. No different than when they talk about Barry Bonds and they show several no descriptive shots of Barry walking around or hitting a baseball or fielding a ground ball.

Peace

Nevadaref

JRutledge wrote
Continuous motion applies to any opponent fouling the team in possession of the ball. So yes you allow the shot to be completed and you award points accordingly.

If the ball is released you are ~~not~~ going to ~~not~~ allow the shot to be completed. The ball is not dead because of a foul after a released try. This applies even if A4 commits a foul.

Correct ruling, but the language is simpler this way. 🙂

Mark Padgett

JRutledge wrote
when they talk about Barry Bonds and they show several no descriptive shots of Barry walking around

Don't you mean "waddling"? 😀

btaylor64

Kajun Ref N Texas wrote
Agreed. I really could care less about the NBA rules. I saw the play on the video and wondered to myself what the NFHS rule was.

The ruling for the NBA would be that B1 is assessed the foul and if the bucket goes, A1 will shoot 1 free throw and play off the miss.

I am wondering, as far as college and high school rules, who shoots the free throw(s) in this sitch or does the ball go out of bounds even after a make, or does the shooter go to the line for free throws?

This play happened in the first half (i think) of the SOCON Championship game and I think they let the shooter go to the free throw line.

Jurassic Referee

btaylor64 wrote
I am wondering, as far as college and high school rules, who shoots the free throw(s) in this sitch or does the ball go out of bounds even after a make, or does the shooter go to the line for free throws?

The player fouled shoots the FT's if his team is in the bonus under both FED and NCAA rules. If they aren't in the bonus yet, then they would get the ball OOB for a throw-in at the closest spot to the foul, whether the shot was made or missed.

Nevadaref

Jurassic Referee wrote
The player fouled shoots the FT's if his team is in the bonus under both FED and NCAA rules. If they aren't in the bonus yet, then they would get the ball OOB for a throw-in at the closest spot to the foul, whether the shot was made or missed.

But in the NBA the FOULED player goes to the line for a single FT even if his team is not yet in the penalty for the quarter. Yet another difference in the rule sets which confuses the spectators.

lmeadski

Jurassic Referee wrote
The player fouled shoots the FT's if his team is in the bonus under both FED and NCAA rules. If they aren't in the bonus yet, then they would get the ball OOB for a throw-in at the closest spot to the foul, whether the shot was made or missed.

Does continuous motion apply to high school? I don't recall it being mentioned in the NFHS rulebook...

Jurassic Referee

lmeadski wrote
Does continuous motion apply to high school? I don't recall it being mentioned in the NFHS rulebook...

NFHS rule 6-7-7EXCEPTIONc and casebook plays 6.7COMMENT and 6.7C&D.

JRutledge

lmeadski wrote
Does continuous motion apply to high school? I don't recall it being mentioned in the NFHS rulebook...

JR,

Why did you not give this definition reference?

Rule 4-11 is the actual definition of Continuous Motion.

Reading definitions is the most important thing any official should do. Every rule comes back to a definition.

Peace

rainmaker

Thinking about this play...

If the ref thought that B pushed or bumped the non-shooter just to bump the shooter and stop the shot, could the ref call it intentional? Seems to me it's extremely unfair that that shot can be taken away, and the penalty is as if it wasn't on the shot. I mean if B fouls the shooter directly, shooter gets to shoot. So if the ref thought it was just a non-basketball play, so to speak, wouldn't it be reasonable to call it intentional?

Jurassic Referee

rainmaker wrote
Thinking about this play...

If the ref thought that B pushed or bumped the non-shooter just to bump the shooter and stop the shot, could the ref call it intentional? Seems to me it's extremely unfair that that shot can be taken away, and the penalty is as if it wasn't on the shot. I mean if B fouls the shooter directly, shooter gets to shoot. So if the ref thought it was just a non-basketball play, so to speak, wouldn't it be reasonable to call it intentional?

Most intentional fouls are judgment calls. You apply the same criteria to all of them...i.e. was the foul committed to gain an unfair advantage?

Mwanr1

rainmaker wrote
Thinking about this play...

If the ref thought that B pushed or bumped the non-shooter just to bump the shooter and stop the shot, could the ref call it intentional? Seems to me it's extremely unfair that that shot can be taken away, and the penalty is as if it wasn't on the shot. I mean if B fouls the shooter directly, shooter gets to shoot. So if the ref thought it was just a non-basketball play, so to speak, wouldn't it be reasonable to call it intentional?

I agree that if the defensive player intentionally push his opponent into another opponent to prevent a basket from scoring, it should be deemed intentional (regardless of how severe the contact may be).

Adam

Generally, if you think the player intentionally pushed his opponent, it's an intentional foul.

rainmaker

Jurassic Referee wrote
Most intentional fouls are judgment calls. You apply the same criteria to all of them...i.e. was the foul committed to gain an unfair advantage?

yea, you're right. I guess what I"m thinking is, I might be quicker to judge this intentional than most other fouls. I know it's all judgment but, this seems more likely to be intentional just on the face of it. Does that seem reasonable?