NBA- Magic vs Wizards (Video)
 

What do you got? Did the refs made a mistake? It was overturned, no basket. It seems clear the Wizard player hit the rim while the ball still had a chance to go in. But does the Magic player also touch the ball at about the same time?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDe9GPhSrgE

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EDe9GPhSrgE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkZIRw7G0Us

First violation kills the play, doesn't matter what happens after that. I don't see the rim touch, but I see yes two different players touch the ball

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Rim was touched after the ball had fallen off the edge of the basket...thus ending the field goal attempt and thus no goaltending (or what we'd call basket interference). This was a correct overturn.

I think Orlando committed offensive goaltending first, which kills the play, then the Washington hand hits the rim.

Orlando player touches the ball after it's fallen off the edge...which is legal under NBA rules.

So what was the ruling on the play itself

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Initial ruling was goaltending...which was overturned after going to replay.

That's what I thought ... but I don't know NBA rules.

Also, how does Orlando end up with the ball there? Wouldn't this be a jump ball? The whistle on Washington for goaltending was overturned and there was no team control when the whistle sounded. (I'm sure the officials did this right -- just curious the rule)

OK I get it now. It took a while! Edit- No I don't. The basket interference call is overturned(the wizard player hitting the rim) No basket for the Magic. The replay center rules that the Orlando player hits the ball, like a micro second before the Wizard players hits the rim. They say no offensive goaltending because the ball is going out but that is confusing to me because clearly the ball is still going to bounce on the rim, and if there is no offensive goaltending, then how does that negate the Wizard player hitting the rim? Does the NBA have a rule that says a defensive player can hit the rim, like the backboard slap, if it is part of the normal defensive/rebounding flow? Think about it. If the Magic player, Vucevic, does a tap and the ball is going to go in. According to the ruling, the replay center is saying that no offensive GT occurred so had Vucevic scored the basket it would have counted. But say on the tap, the ball was going to go in and the Wizard player hits the rim. Then shouldn't the basket count? The play should go to when the whistle should have occurred, which is the play in question. Not when oladipo is about to get the ball. So by that logic, if no offensive goaltending occurred, isn't there basket interference by the Wizards player or are they just ignoring that or maybe it is different for the NBA??

I just found this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ9dO-gqHP4


"Following Wall’s go-ahead floater with 12.7 seconds to play, Orlando (0-1) had another nightmarish scenario unfold when Harris’ potential winning layup hung on the rim for what felt like an eternity, but it ultimately fell off following a flurry of activity in the lane.

Washington’s Marcin Gortat tried blocking Harris’ shot and instead smacked high right hand on the backboard, causing the rim to shake. Referees didn’t whistle Gortat for goaltending, but they did stop the action for a goaltending call when Orlando’s Nikola Vucevic and an unidentified Washington player tried tipping the miss in. However, Orlando’s ref-assisted basket that briefly gave it the lead was wiped off when replays showed no goaltending had occurred when the ball rolled outside of the rim’s cylinder.

``As you know this year, several plays are now reviewed and the ruling is made in the replay center,’’ referee Jason Phillips told a pool reporter. ``This (goal-tending) is one of those plays. So, they made the ruling and said that it was a legal touch.’’
Postgame Report: Magic vs. Wizards (10/28/15) | Orlando Magic

At the time of the whistle, Orlando had gained control of the ball...hence them retaining position of the ball after the overturn. If the whistle had come in while the ball was loose, play would resume w/a jump ball at halfcourt between any two players in the game at the time of the call.

NBA Case Book (2014-2015)

225. Player A1’s field goal attempt at 2:01 of the fourth period is goaltended by B5 at 2:00 and the official has doubt whether the ball had started is downward flight. What is the procedure?

Since the call was made in the last two minutes of the fourth period, the officials will use Instant Replay to determine if the goaltending call was correctly assessed or if there is clear and conclusive visual evidence that the ball was not on its downward flight. If the call is overturned, it will be treated as a suspension of play and a jump ball between any two players in the game will be held at center court if the ball was loose when the whistle was blown or returned to the team that had control of the ball when the whistle was sounded.

RULE 13 - SECTION I - a (13)

Under NBA rules, the overturn is treated as a suspension of play. Play is resumed at the POI. The POI is a throw-in for Orlando cause they had control of the ball. In a high school game...if you came in this late with a goaltending call...and for whatever reason your partner comes in and gets you to overturn your call (in essence, an IW), why would you go to the arrow when Team A is in control of the ball?

The ball is rolling out is key part...once the ball is falling of the edge of the basket, basket interference and goaltending are not in effect. You can tip the ball in and it would count...you could can also touch the rim as well.

mutant, if you want answers, make a new post instead of continually adding new questions to your previous post.

Sorry, I was editing it and came back to it

thanks. good case study for nba refs
So they are basically looking at this like an inadvertent whistle. And they are saying because the whistle occurred right after and they think the Magic player is going to get the ball or has it so Magic retain possession. Had Oladipo made the basket, it would not have counted because the whistle occurs before his shot? That would have been a another can of worms!

That bolded is something I've never heard before. Making a ruling because you think a player will get the ball.

There's no think. At the time of the whistle, Orlando had possession of the ball. So they retain possession of the ball. If the whistle comes while the ball is loose, resume with a jump ball.

that was something I thought I heard in this video. I was wrong. I thought the whistle had blown before he had the ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ9dO-gqHP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDe9GPhSrgE

It looks like the Magic player has the ball at the exact same time of the first whistle, hard to tell exactly when. So inadvertent whistle, Magic keep the ball, and had he scored the basket it would not have counted.

Because Team A wasn't in control of the ball. The ball was dead at the time of the "GT", even if it was deemed incorrect later.

yeah. The whistle in the HS hypothetical occurs after the GT/basket interference. But you essentially backtrack to when the whistle was supposed to have blown with the possible violation. So if team A has the ball, like Oladipo did, it would be a possession/arrow play on the inadvertent whistle because no one was in control of the ball when the potential violation occurred. But from the case here it looks like the NBA goes by when the whistle was blown. I like the HS way better. I still think they made a mistake by not doing a jump ball. If the ref had blown the whistle instantly and before Oladipo gets the ball, then it is a jump. But because there was a tiny delay Orlando gets the ball even though clearly the the whistle was blown for the GT. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. There is no way that's right and if the NBA has a rule like that they should change it because it is totally understandable there would be a delay in blowing the whistle on plays like that. Your brain probably isn't going to interpret an unusual play like that as fast. Basically they are seeing the play as an inadvertent whistle. So just imagine that the ref blew the whistle on accident and it didn't have anything to do with the GT call. Rightly or wrongly they are ignoring that the whistle was blown for GT and instead are taking it when the whistle occurred as an IW which meant Orlando keeps the ball.

Also on the ball rolling out part
20 seconds to 105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDe9GPhSrgE
it is subjective and yeah it probably was going to roll out. But looking at the video,when the touches occur and the location of the ball on the rim, I'm not convinced that was the right call. I think the ball was still going to bounce around there and I don't see how you can say with 100% certainty that it was going to roll out. It also looks like the Wizard player by hitting the rim causes the ball to bounce away too.

Agree. I could not say whether that ball was going in or not at that point. As such, you have to assume is still had a chance to go in.

It also looks like when the Wizard player hits the rim it causes the ball to bounce away a bit giving the appearance that it is rolling out. So close, tough replay. I wonder how long they took? I also wonder how many people they have looking at it and how a decision is reached.

-

http://www.nba.com/lakers/releases/l...0_replayCenter

I was reading about how in the Timberwolves game the replays took way too long. And for the play discussed above I understand how you can't get it right away. There needs to be a balance between the speed of the replay and getting the call right. Of course the main priority should be getting it right, but not at the cost of holding the game up which was the case with the Twolves last night. I would do a max 2 minute review. If it is unclear have a majority vote or uphold the original call. If need be do a jump at mid-court but the main issue is the review time needs to be shortened even if in the end the call is wrong.

The whole reason for the review process is to get the call right. To arbitrarily decide that the value of the process is based on a time limit, seems anathema to the original premise . . . "Why is it that the last place I look for something is always the place I find it?" . .
As annoying as a drawn-out review can be, it is still part of the process.

I disagree. The NBA is about entertainment, not solely I know, but you have to consider the fans watching on tv and in the stands, the players on the court, and I think the more important issue is having a replay system that works well and fast. If you have replays lasting over 3 minutes, and it sounds like it did in the TWolves game, then that hurts the NBA brand and the fan experience.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lillard...5748--nba.html
REPLAY ISSUES

The NBA revamped its replay system in the offseason, adding more referees in the replay center in New Jersey in hopes of speeding up the process. You never would've known that in the second half Monday night when several replays resulted in long waits for a final ruling. That included Wiggins' goaltending and a shot clock violation on the Blazers that was eventually ruled an inadvertent whistle. ''In the last two minutes, nothing went our way, including the 30 minutes it took to figure out a couple calls,'' Martin said. ''We'll learn from it.''

Does anything in the article tell us how long the replay reviews took, or is it just that they "felt" too long?

It's also about gambling and if "getting it right" means a difference in the spread / fantasy points, etc -- then the extra time isn't going to matter to those affected.