Excellent clips and content. I think in the last clip the slow motion effect of video impacted the commentary. In real time motion this sure appears to be a foul while in the act of shooting - i.e. the foul prevented the shooting from finishing a normal follow through (act). Nonetheless, I benefited from these clips. Thanks!
In the Spinning Motion segment @ 5:15 - how on earth is that not a travel? 23 pivots, spins, steps, lifts his pivot foot, jumps off his non-pivot foot, lands on his non-pivot foot, then releases the ball.
Great post Josh, thank you. I understand the point of the video is to discuss continuous motion but just want to ask as this is a great example. In clip two with the spin move, the ball handler actually travels AFTER being fouled during the spin move ...picks up dribble with right foot on floor, spins (gets fouled) and lifts right foot, then puts right foot back on floor (and his left foot again also) before releasing the ball. Since the ball doesn't become dead at the time of the foul with continuous motion in effect, if the shot went in, should it be waived off due to the travel violation? and/or would the travel violation nullify a shooting foul? If we grant free throws and rule in order of how it occurs, should the free throws be administered with the lane lines cleared and the other team would get a throw in due to the travel violation after the second free throw? How should this be ruled?. This scenario is more common than one might think yet can't find a case book scenario on it. Looking forward to your reply.
Really well thought out question. If a player is fouled in the act of shooting, they are allowed to shoot free throws. If continuous motion applies they are allowed to finish the customary movements. Since any action that is considered a traveling violation would not be a "customary" movement, the continuous motion rule would no longer apply and the goal be disallowed. However, they were still fouled in the act of shooting and should be given free throws. Does that help?
@@OfficialsInstitute With a lack of a case book scenario my opinion is it should be administered similar to a false double foul... Waive off basket if it goes in due to violation, award two free throws with lane cleared, other team gets designated spot throw in after free throws? What do you think?
@@Vance005 It should not be treated the same as having two different fouls that each carry their own penalty, as in the false double foul scenario you are referencing. The traveling violation simply negates the ability for the player to continue his motion to try for a goal. Play would resume with the free throws awarded to the player who was fouled while in the act of shooting. You can reference Case Book play 6.7.9 Situation. Even though this case play is not identical to what we are discussing, the principle is the same.
@@OfficialsInstitute But violations have their own penalty... If the try doesn't go in then travel violation should just be ignored? Will review 6.7.9 tomorrow.. Thanks for the reference.
@@OfficialsInstitute Agreed. 6.7.9 case scenario principle is same when ball goes in in our scenario. Violation on the offensive team after a continuation foul called, basket does not count and administer two free throws. That keeps it simple and consistent however, what I still see as a difference is that if the try doesn't go in, the travel violation by the shooter would go un-penalized? Curious, have you ever seen it called or call this scenario? Would be a tough explanation to a coach.
In the second clip, wouldn’t the travel by the offensive player cancel the continuous motion? It looks like the player comes down touching the floor before the ball is released.
Yes, the traveling would negate continuous motion and if the ball went through the basket would wave off any points associated with it. But it does not negate the fact he was fouled while in the act of shooting and thus awarding free throws would be the proper ruling.
On play #2 off. player traveled when he spun and then landed on the floor, "traveling twice" before shooting. Yes he was fouled but his back was to the basket when his arm was grabbed and he had a long way to go to get a legal shot off. A pass here was just as reasonable to assume. Why bail him out? I like the call on the floor.
You are very good at explaining basketball rules thoroughly - very helpful for potential referees or just fans of the game. Thanks!
Thank you for your kind words.
Nice breakdown and video review Josh! Keep up the good work!
Thanks a ton!
another very informative video. thank you
Glad you liked it
Excellent clips and content. I think in the last clip the slow motion effect of video impacted the commentary. In real time motion this sure appears to be a foul while in the act of shooting - i.e. the foul prevented the shooting from finishing a normal follow through (act). Nonetheless, I benefited from these clips. Thanks!
Thanks for watching.
FANTASTIC VIDEO!!!
Glad you liked it!
In the Spinning Motion segment @ 5:15 - how on earth is that not a travel? 23 pivots, spins, steps, lifts his pivot foot, jumps off his non-pivot foot, lands on his non-pivot foot, then releases the ball.
It is a travel, but that doesn't negate the fact that he was fouled in the act of shooting.
Great post Josh, thank you. I understand the point of the video is to discuss continuous motion but just want to ask as this is a great example. In clip two with the spin move, the ball handler actually travels AFTER being fouled during the spin move ...picks up dribble with right foot on floor, spins (gets fouled) and lifts right foot, then puts right foot back on floor (and his left foot again also) before releasing the ball. Since the ball doesn't become dead at the time of the foul with continuous motion in effect, if the shot went in, should it be waived off due to the travel violation? and/or would the travel violation nullify a shooting foul? If we grant free throws and rule in order of how it occurs, should the free throws be administered with the lane lines cleared and the other team would get a throw in due to the travel violation after the second free throw? How should this be ruled?. This scenario is more common than one might think yet can't find a case book scenario on it. Looking forward to your reply.
Really well thought out question. If a player is fouled in the act of shooting, they are allowed to shoot free throws. If continuous motion applies they are allowed to finish the customary movements. Since any action that is considered a traveling violation would not be a "customary" movement, the continuous motion rule would no longer apply and the goal be disallowed. However, they were still fouled in the act of shooting and should be given free throws. Does that help?
@@OfficialsInstitute With a lack of a case book scenario my opinion is it should be administered similar to a false double foul... Waive off basket if it goes in due to violation, award two free throws with lane cleared, other team gets designated spot throw in after free throws? What do you think?
@@Vance005 It should not be treated the same as having two different fouls that each carry their own penalty, as in the false double foul scenario you are referencing. The traveling violation simply negates the ability for the player to continue his motion to try for a goal. Play would resume with the free throws awarded to the player who was fouled while in the act of shooting. You can reference Case Book play 6.7.9 Situation. Even though this case play is not identical to what we are discussing, the principle is the same.
@@OfficialsInstitute But violations have their own penalty... If the try doesn't go in then travel violation should just be ignored? Will review 6.7.9 tomorrow.. Thanks for the reference.
@@OfficialsInstitute Agreed. 6.7.9 case scenario principle is same when ball goes in in our scenario. Violation on the offensive team after a continuation foul called, basket does not count and administer two free throws. That keeps it simple and consistent however, what I still see as a difference is that if the try doesn't go in, the travel violation by the shooter would go un-penalized? Curious, have you ever seen it called or call this scenario? Would be a tough explanation to a coach.
In the last clip, what if the basket had gone in? Do you wave it off since the player landed on the floor before the foul was called?
If the ball goes in, the basket counts as it was a legal try for goal. The foul after the shot does not have any connection to the shot.
So on that last clip, if that shot bounced around and didn't go in until after the whistle, would it count?
Yes, because the ball does not become dead until the try for goal ends.
In the second clip, wouldn’t the travel by the offensive player cancel the continuous motion? It looks like the player comes down touching the floor before the ball is released.
Yes, the traveling would negate continuous motion and if the ball went through the basket would wave off any points associated with it. But it does not negate the fact he was fouled while in the act of shooting and thus awarding free throws would be the proper ruling.
@@OfficialsInstitute thanks for the clarification.
On play #2 off. player traveled when he spun and then landed on the floor, "traveling twice" before shooting. Yes he was fouled but his back was to the basket when his arm was grabbed and he had a long way to go to get a legal shot off. A pass here was just as reasonable to assume. Why bail him out? I like the call on the floor.
Thanks for watching.
In the 2nd clip the player walked...so I think it should've been called a foul on the floor.
Did the foul happen before the travel? If so, the player was fouled in the act of shooting.