Iguodala blocks his own dunk

[comical]

In the USA-Argentina game yesterday, a dunk by Iguodala was disallowed because the ball hit him on the way down and went back up through the basket. In the unlikely event a play like this occurs when I'm working at the table (I'm one of the handful of posters here that keep the book; I work at a Division III school) is it likely to be verbal communication with one or more of the officials that explained what happened? Should I look for a "no basket" signal? Any other thoughts about how this is handled?

Here's a link to a site with a video of the dunk. Thanks in advance. Sorry if this was mentioned in another thread, but I haven't seen it.

Andre Iguodala Blocks His Own Dunk - From Our Editors - SBNation.com

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by comical

In the USA-Argentina game yesterday, a dunk by Iguodala was disallowed because the ball hit him on the way down and went back up through the basket. In the unlikely event a play like this occurs when I'm working at the table (I'm one of the handful of posters here that keep the book; I work at a Division III school) is it likely to be verbal communication with one or more of the officials that explained what happened? Should I look for a "no basket" signal? Any other thoughts about how this is handled?

Here's a link to a site with a video of the dunk. Thanks in advance. Sorry if this was mentioned in another thread, but I haven't seen it. [/url]

I, and I think I speak for the vast majority here on this forum, welcome the seasoned input and inquiries from table officials like you.

Help me out here . . . did they determine that the shooter committed basket interference, that the ball did not pass completely through the basket, and for that reason disallowed the score? Otherwise I can't figure why they wouldn't score the two points.

Interesting that, though 9-4 (NFHS, re. "Ball Enters Basket from Below") doesn't specify that a violation occurs whether the ball is dead or live, the penalty for it mentions that "the ball is dead when the violation occurs". So my assumption that a 9-4 violation would not apply because the ball was dead after passing through the basket.

Unless FIFA, upon converting the play to metric, has a rule different than the Fed.

Am I missing something in this sitch?

Thanx for the post. Someone from the Western US should be answering your other questions shortly, if he's still around.

[comical]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I, and I think I speak for the vast majority here on this forum, welcome the seasoned input and inquiries from table officials like you.

Help me out here . . . did they determine that the shooter committed basket interference, that the ball did not pass completely through the basket, and for that reason disallowed the score? Otherwise I can't figure why they wouldn't score the two points.

Interesting that, though 9-4 (NFHS, re. "Ball Enters Basket from Below") doesn't specify that a violation occurs whether the ball is dead or live, the penalty for it mentions that "the ball is dead when the violation occurs". So my assumption that a 9-4 violation would not apply because the ball was dead after passing through the basket.

Am I missing something in this sitch?

Thanx for the post. Someone from the Western US should be answering your other questions shortly, if he's still around.

I can't answer your question about what the officials determined; none of the replays I saw showed a signal from an official. Soon after the dunk was disallowed, Iguodala was looking up at the scoreboard and then appeared to be asking an official if the basket had counted.

[JetMetFan]

FIBA's rules are the same as NFHS/NCAA/NBA regarding when a goal is scored.

16.1.1 A goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from above and remains within or passes through the basket.

FIBA's BI rule does have the part concerning touching the ball while it's in the net but it's only illegal if the defense does it and the ball doesn't pass through the basket (if, however, it's a player who reaches through the basket from below then anyone can be called for it). Under FIBA rules the Iguadola play just goes as a missed shot because the ball came out of the wrong side of the basket.

[MD Longhorn]

No signal necessary - the fact that they played on, and Arg did not take the ball out of bounds to bring it in - tells you this was simply a missed basket. There's no signal for missed basket.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No signal necessary - the fact that they played on, and Arg did not take the ball out of bounds to bring it in - tells you this was simply a missed basket. There's no signal for missed basket.

Oh, they played on after this? Without a throwin after a made basket? Or without a BI violation called? Is that a FIFA thing?
In NFHS, either way a dead ball would result, right? Either...
A) ...the opponents are awarded a throwin after a made basket along the endline after a successful throw, which just happened to hit the shooter after passing through the basket (5-1-1),
or
B) ...the dunker commits basket interence having touched the ball while it is within the basket (4-6-1)
Am I on the right track here, Fed-wise?
And is FIFA different, whereby a "play on" is the result to this play?
Who is John Galt?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Oh, they played on after this? Without a throwin after a made basket? Or without a BI violation called? Is that a FIFA thing?
In NFHS, either way a dead ball would result, right? Either...
A) ...the opponents are awarded a throwin after a made basket along the endline after a successful throw, which just happened to hit the shooter after passing through the basket (5-1-1),
or
B) ...the dunker commits basket interence having touched the ball while it is within the basket (4-6-1)
Am I on the right track here, Fed-wise?
And is FIFA different, whereby a "play on" is the result to this play?
Who is John Galt?

No ... this was NOT a made basket, and this was NOT basket interference. This, ugly as it was, was just a miss.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No ... this was NOT a made basket, and this was NOT basket interference. This, ugly as it was, was just a miss.

By rule, or by the fact that they played on?
(not trying to be difficult; just trying to understand)

[Raymond]

The ball went completely through and cleared the net and then bounced back through the ring. Should have been a made basket.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Freddy

By rule, or by the fact that they played on?
(not trying to be difficult; just trying to understand)

BNR is correct...the ball did actually clear the net....and was actually a good basket.

But let's assume it didn't...in a NFHS/NCAA/NBA game, it would be basket interference for touching the ball while it was in the basket. The only way you could play on is if the ball didn't clear the net because it somehow got caught up/snagged in the net and popped back out.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The ball went completely through and cleared the net and then bounced back through the ring. Should have been a made basket.

I'd guess you're about 70% correct, but I slowed the thing down and frame by frame I could not clearly and positively see the ball not contacting the net at any moment before it started coming back up.

At full speed not only is this not 100% clear, but it's also not 100% clear it hit Iguodala, depending on the angle the referee had (and frankly how much experience he had).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

The only way you could play on is if the ball didn't clear the net because it somehow got caught up/snagged in the net and popped back out.

Which is obviously what they saw (right or wrong) in full speed without replaying it.

[tref]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'd guess you're about 70% correct, but I slowed the thing down and frame by frame I could not clearly and positively see the ball not contacting the net at any moment before it started coming back up.

At full speed not only is this not 100% clear, but it's also not 100% clear it hit Iguodala, depending on the angle the referee had (and frankly how much experience he had).

Once the ball passes entirely through the basket (net included) it should be a successful try. IMO, the ball clearly & positively passed through the net before going back through the basket from below.

[comical]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Oh, they played on after this? Without a throwin after a made basket? Or without a BI violation called? Is that a FIFA thing?
In NFHS, either way a dead ball would result, right? Either...
A) ...the opponents are awarded a throwin after a made basket along the endline after a successful throw, which just happened to hit the shooter after passing through the basket (5-1-1),
or
B) ...the dunker commits basket interence having touched the ball while it is within the basket (4-6-1)
Am I on the right track here, Fed-wise?
And is FIFA different, whereby a "play on" is the result to this play?
Who is John Galt?

The teams did play on, which is the answer and seems obvious now that I see it in print. I should have realized that myself; I'm easily confused, as anyone who's worked at a game where I'm the scorer could tell you.

I think the strangeness of the play made me even more confused than usual. And reading some of the answers led me to delete a post I made earlier because I still wasn't sure how this would be handled. But there isn't anything to handle. Play would just continue.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Once the ball passes entirely through the basket (net included) it should be a successful try. IMO, the ball clearly & positively passed through the net before going back through the basket from below.

I can't get the video to work, but it seems to me if the players are playing on as if it missed, I'm not stopping the game if there's any doubt. I'm likely to play on.