BI on Throw in

[Nevadaref]

Here is an article detailing how the NBA rule is in fact different from that of NFHS during a throw-in.

AP Photo transref:WCF143, transref:WCF148

By TIM REYNOLDS=

AP Basketball Writer=

When Phoenix's Deandre Ayton reached over the rim to dunk Jae Crowder's pass for what became the winning points of the Suns' 104-103 win over the Los Angeles Clippers, several players immediately argued that the play was illegal.

Perhaps it was wishful thinking on their part.

Or, perhaps more likely, they did not fully understand the rule.

In almost any other situation, what Ayton did would have been a violation - offensive basket interference - and the shot shouldn't have counted. But in this situation, what he did was perfectly legal.

WHY DID IT COUNT?

NBA Rule 11, Section I, Subsection f gives part of the answer.

That rule states that a player shall not ''touch any ball from within the playing area that is on its downward flight with an opportunity to score. This is considered to be a `field goal attempt' or trying for a goal.''

Crowder's pass - an extremely difficult one - was not a field goal attempt. Because it was an inbounds pass, it would not have counted as a field goal even if it went through the basket untouched by a teammate. The goaltending rule doesn't apply for the same reason.

CAN THIS HAPPEN DURING LIVE PLAY?

No. Such a play only works with the clock not running, or in NBA parlance, when the ball isn't ''live.''

During a live-ball situation as play is happening, if Crowder wanted to throw an alley-oop pass to Ayton and not be part of a violation he would have to ensure that the ball isn't what's called ''inside the cylinder'' - basically, an imaginary ring extending up from the surface of the rim.

But the clock was not running. This was not a live ball.

From the NBA case book, addressing such a situation: ''Goaltending or basket interference has not occurred. For either of these violations to occur, a ball which is alive must enter the cylinder area after having been legally touched on the playing court. All players must consider this type of play as an ordinary throw-in and anyone may attempt to gain possession of the ball without penalty.''

HAS THIS HAPPENED BEFORE?

Yes, and perhaps most notably, in Phoenix.

During a game on Dec. 26, 2017 between the Suns and Memphis Grizzlies - tied with 0.6 seconds remaining - then-Suns coach Jay Triano called for a play where Phoenix's Dragan Bender would throw an inbounds pass over the rim and set up Tyson Chandler for a dunk.

Triano had asked the NBA long beforehand if such a scenario would be legal. The NBA confirmed that it would be, and Triano kept the idea stashed in his mind for such a moment. Bender's pass was precise, Chandler got the dunk down and the Suns won 99-97.

''It's a rule a lot of people don't know,'' Triano said that night. ''You cannot goaltend a ball that isn't going to count.''

---

More AP NBA: https://apnews.com/hub/NBA and https://twitter.com/AP-Sports

[Stillblind]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here is an article detailing how the NBA rule is in fact different from that of NFHS during a throw-in.

AP Photo transref:WCF143, transref:WCF148

By TIM REYNOLDS=

AP Basketball Writer=

When Phoenix's Deandre Ayton reached over the rim to dunk Jae Crowder's pass for what became the winning points of the Suns' 104-103 win over the Los Angeles Clippers, several players immediately argued that the play was illegal.

Perhaps it was wishful thinking on their part.

Or, perhaps more likely, they did not fully understand the rule.

In almost any other situation, what Ayton did would have been a violation - offensive basket interference - and the shot shouldn't have counted. But in this situation, what he did was perfectly legal.

WHY DID IT COUNT?

NBA Rule 11, Section I, Subsection f gives part of the answer.

That rule states that a player shall not ''touch any ball from within the playing area that is on its downward flight with an opportunity to score. This is considered to be a `field goal attempt' or trying for a goal.''

Crowder's pass - an extremely difficult one - was not a field goal attempt. Because it was an inbounds pass, it would not have counted as a field goal even if it went through the basket untouched by a teammate. The goaltending rule doesn't apply for the same reason.

CAN THIS HAPPEN DURING LIVE PLAY?

No. Such a play only works with the clock not running, or in NBA parlance, when the ball isn't ''live.''

During a live-ball situation as play is happening, if Crowder wanted to throw an alley-oop pass to Ayton and not be part of a violation he would have to ensure that the ball isn't what's called ''inside the cylinder'' - basically, an imaginary ring extending up from the surface of the rim.

But the clock was not running. This was not a live ball.

From the NBA case book, addressing such a situation: ''Goaltending or basket interference has not occurred. For either of these violations to occur, a ball which is alive must enter the cylinder area after having been legally touched on the playing court. All players must consider this type of play as an ordinary throw-in and anyone may attempt to gain possession of the ball without penalty.''

HAS THIS HAPPENED BEFORE?

Yes, and perhaps most notably, in Phoenix.

During a game on Dec. 26, 2017 between the Suns and Memphis Grizzlies - tied with 0.6 seconds remaining - then-Suns coach Jay Triano called for a play where Phoenix's Dragan Bender would throw an inbounds pass over the rim and set up Tyson Chandler for a dunk.

Triano had asked the NBA long beforehand if such a scenario would be legal. The NBA confirmed that it would be, and Triano kept the idea stashed in his mind for such a moment. Bender's pass was precise, Chandler got the dunk down and the Suns won 99-97.

''It's a rule a lot of people don't know,'' Triano said that night. ''You cannot goaltend a ball that isn't going to count.''

---

More AP NBA: https://apnews.com/hub/NBA and https://twitter.com/AP-Sports

They actually use the word ALIVE in their casebook? Not surprised at all!!
What a bunch of clowns. The word is LIVE… the ball never is and never will be ALIVE!

[BillyMac]

Yes? Then you had better go catch it!

Originally Posted by Stillblind

They actually use the word ALIVE in their casebook? The word is LIVE… the ball never is and never will be ALIVE!

I also find it odd that the NBA only considers the ball live when the clock is running. I guess that points scored from free throws are dead ball points?

[JRutledge]

This is not new stuff here. Not sure why basketball officials struggle with the idea that the pros will be different or use different language? Yes, it is about entertainment, that is what pro sports is about. They want certain outcomes. It has nothing or little to do with what other levels do. I have to explain all the time what is different about the NFL when I work college and high school participants what they see on TV does not apply to them. Just a different rule and philosophy, get over it already.

Peace

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes? Then you had better go catch it!



I also find it odd that the NBA only considers the ball live when the clock is running. I guess that points scored from free throws are dead ball points?

Actually the NBA uses the terms live and alive. On a free throw, the ball is live when at the disposal of the FT shooter and it becomes alive when the FT is released.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Such a play only works with the clock not running, or in NBA parlance, when the ball isn't ''live.'' ... But the clock was not running. This was not a live ball.

Originally Posted by Jay R

Actually the NBA uses the terms live and alive. On a free throw, the ball is live when at the disposal of the FT shooter and it becomes alive when the FT is released.

Makes it even more silly. Nevertheless, to paraphrase JRutledge, different level, different language.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Makes it even more silly. Nevertheless, to paraphrase JRutledge, different level, different language.

I don't know why that makes it silly. I actually like the fact that they have a separate term for that difference in the ball's status.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I actually like the fact that they have a separate term for that difference in the ball's status.

NFHS actually had something (not exactly) similar back in ancient times.

Change of status.

80% of a five second, or ten second count.

After four of a five second count (throwin, closely guarded), no timeout request is granted.

After eight of a ten second count (backcourt, free throw), no timeout request is granted.

I was pleased when the change of status rule was deleted.

Who wants to figure out mathematical percentages in the middle of a basketball game, especially since most officials don't carry a slide rule while officiating? Even back then, many officials didn't wear a belt to loop their slide rule leather (or leatherette) carrying case on.

Do I have that right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Stillblind

They actually use the word ALIVE in their casebook? Not surprised at all!! What a bunch of clowns. The word is LIVE … the ball never is and never will be ALIVE!

Originally Posted by Raymond

I don't know why that makes it silly.

I believe that it's silly (just silly, not the end of the world, see Stillblind quote above) to call an inanimate object (a ball) "alive", but somehow I don't find it silly to call such an inanimate object "live".

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jay R

Actually the NBA uses the terms live and alive. On a free throw, the ball is live when at the disposal of the FT shooter and it becomes alive when the FT is released.

Note to technical writers: Don't follow NBA's example by having a difference in technical terms depend on the presence or absence of a single vowel, especially if you ever expect oral communication to be used by those making use of them.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Note to technical writers: Don't follow NBA's example by having a difference in technical terms depend on the presence or absence of a single vowel, especially if you ever expect oral communication to be used by those making use of them.

Especially a single vowel that is also a commonly used article.

A live ...

Alive ...