Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
It did, but there is now one very specific exception (downward flight on a ball that hits the backboard) to the six necessary components in the definition of goaltending.
The definition of goaltending (with above the rim level) hasn't really changed, just added an exception.
...and of course, only defensive goaltending, no longer any offensive goaltending, a rule that went all the way back to Bill Russell "The Funneler" in college.
And, we'll have to wait and see what the exact rule language is in the definition of goaltending when the books finally get printed.
Lots of things can happen between now and then.
Lots of things can also happen after the books get printed based on the past forty-plus years of post printing corrections.
|
You are saying it did not change, but there is no evidence it did not change. We have not seen the rulebook or the definition. Again, this is a college rule adoption or a rule adopted from other levels. At all other levels, the classification for being completely above the rim does not apply if the ball hits the backboard first. So why would they keep that part unless they were intentionally keeping that part in the rule? Yes, they did not explicitly state that they took that part out, but they did not say it was considered for this kind of GT. So basically, you have two kinds of GT, one for the ball being shot that does not touch the backboard and another that does. When the NCAA rule changed, they were very intentional about what happens when the ball hits the backboard, even saying that if any part of the ball is above the rim, it is a violation if the ball hits the backboard first. The NF has yet to say it that way or make it clear that is their intention. All I am asking is for clarity so I know how to talk about this rule or teach it. The case play or interpretation does not make that clear.
Peace