Should This Free Throw Count? (Video)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The problem here is three dimensional stuff in a two dimensional photograph. The ball never even gets on top of the board. If I was there I could see how it was put together, and if it's like I think it is, I'd know if there was "no way in hell."

And still....it's not a good place to get involved.

"It hit something up top."

"No, it didn't."

Are you going to flip a coin?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

And still....it's not a good place to get involved.

"It hit something up top."

"No, it didn't."

Are you going to flip a coin?

If there's nothing it possibly could have hit and I have a young partner that seems to be marginal on rules knowledge, I quite possibly would get involved. But, as a normal practice, no, I wouldn't either.

[JRutledge]

Usually when a cord is touched, it shakes. I did not see any shake. But then again the angle needed to be better.

Peace

[luvhoops]

Isn't anyone gonna mention Mr. Disrespectful walking along the baseline during the FT? LOL, I was hoping he would stumble or something.

[PAlbc]

Took looking at a video of the same school on Youtube to figure this out.

It is definitely an issue of angles looking at the OP video. It's the wire that raises and lowers the backboard. That wire extends in a path from just behind the top middle of the backboard straight over the rim and cylinder. The ball could (not in this case) even hit it bouncing straight up with out ever even getting close to the back board.

I'm guessing that this wire gets hit often that the refs are used to looking for it. This contact didn't seem excessive, but the ball was definitely close enough for it to be considered and called. I'm pretty sure the T wasn't calling the ball bouncing on the top of the backboard, because in this spot it couldn't due to the wire.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Dad

No one banks FTs on purpose anymore.

Fixed it for ya

OK, let's assume the call is made, the calling ref calls out "hit the top of the back board!" His partner thinks "Oh $*&%," and starts the conference. Calling official realizes he had a brain freeze.

But what now? Count the FT even though the whistle blew before it went in? Retake the FT because the ref whistled it dead before the FT was completed? PA?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Fixed it for ya

OK, let's assume the call is made, the calling ref calls out "hit the top of the back board!" His partner thinks "Oh $*&%," and starts the conference. Calling official realizes he had a brain freeze.

But what now? Count the FT even though the whistle blew before it went in? Retake the FT because the ref whistled it dead before the FT was completed? PA?

I'd never start a conference here, but if I did:

Inadvertent doesn't instantly stop a ball that's in flight for a goal. Count a make. Otherwise AP. That's if the calling official realized his brain freeze caused him/her to make a call they are 100% sure is incorrect and would stake there life on it.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Fixed it for ya

OK, let's assume the call is made, the calling ref calls out "hit the top of the back board!" His partner thinks "Oh $*&%," and starts the conference. Calling official realizes he had a brain freeze.

But what now? Count the FT even though the whistle blew before it went in? Retake the FT because the ref whistled it dead before the FT was completed? PA?

The whistle is not what makes the ball dead. In your sitch, once there's a conference and the calling official realizes he brain farted, I'm counting the basket.

[HokiePaul]

ruling on the field stands ... I can't tell for sure from the video whether or not the ball touched the wire support. I thought it did when watching in real time, then thought not in slow motion.