Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.
 

Doing some late night reading last night and came upon this in the book.
Can someone please explain this to me?


My head is thinking, why does the goaltending count on a player control foul? We wouldn't count a regular basket.
And if there's a goaltending, the ball would become dead at that point and any foul after that point would have to be a dead ball technical or flagrant foul. But it clearly says A1 is still an airborne shooter, so we don't have that.

So maybe I just don't know enough about my goaltending rules to know that this basket should count.

The violation happened before the PC foul, and we can't ignore the violation?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Awarded Basket ...
 

7.5.7 SITUATION A: B1 goaltends on airborne shooter A1’s try. A1 fouls B1 in returning to the floor. RULING: Since no free throws result from the player-control foul, B’s throw-in is from anywhere along the end line because of the awarded goal for B1’s goaltending violation. (9-12 Penalty 1)

9-12-Penalty 1: A player must not commit goaltending, as in 4-22 … If the violation is at the opponent’s basket, the opponents are awarded one point if during a free throw, three points if during a three point try and two points in any other case.

Agree with Blindolbat that this casebook play has always been very perplexing.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that the local explanation here in my little corner of Connecticut has always been that while true that a basket can't be "scored" under "normal" player control circumstances, the basket can sometimes be "awarded".

The goaltending happened first. So, A gets two (or three) points.

A1 was still airborne -- so it's still a PC foul.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Nice.

The foul doesn't negate the violation that already occurred. The penalty for the violation is an award of 2 points.

The Foul Doesn't Negate The Violation ...
 

Agree.

Raymond reminded me of the exact wording of our local explanation (probably brought up as a "contested" exam question answer, or when I served on the rules training committee): "The foul doesn't negate the violation".

May Not, At First, Seem To Make Sense ...
 

Another "may not, at first, seem to make sense" interpretation.

Along the same lines as a "blarge", where with no additional block called, no basket; but the addition of a block changes it from a player control foul to a double foul, and the penalty for a double foul allows for the basket to be scored.

Yet another reason why basketball officials get paid the big bucks.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.v...=0&w=227&h=171

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

That is also perplexing. The violation should render the ball dead, however, a specific exception to the rules makes fouls on or by an airborne shooter personal fouls, and thus renders a foul by an airborne shooter a player-control foul, even though his team no longer controls the ball by any definition.

The violation penalty then comes into effect, because the violation made the ball dead, not the foul. This is the reason why a player who was fouled in the act of shooting, scores, but has the basket taken away by basket interference on the part of a teammate, shoots free throws. In this case, the violation penalty awards A the points they would have earned on the field goal.

The only thing which is perplexing is your convoluted and confusing post, which also contains several factual errors of NFHS rules.

Here are the clear facts:
The play involves an airborne shooter. Rule 6-7-9 tells us that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, despite a whistle for a goaltending violation.
Therefore, the ball remains live following the goaltending. It only becomes dead when airborne shooter A1 commits a charging foul prior to returning to the floor as this is a player control foul per 4-19-6 and 6-7-4 states that a PC makes the ball dead.

Now we simply penalize the actions in order of occurrence. Award points for the goaltending, and then award Team B a throw-in with the privilege of running the endline due to the awarded goal.

The principle which controls this situation is that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter either returns to the floor or commits a PC foul.

Zombie Ball ...
 

Thanks for he great explanation Nevadaref.

But how can we have two dead balls on the same play?

6-7-9, the goaltending, makes the ball dead first. Check its pulse, it's dead.

Then 6-7-4, the player control foul, give the ball the coup de grâce and makes it really dead for good.

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul?

Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?

Dead is dead? Like a door nail? Right?

If the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?

2-3

Ok. This is the most clear explanation I've heard or read regarding this. I appreciate everyone chiming in. A very rare situation I would have missed until now