The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2001, 09:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3
Question

Does NCAA rules allow for the possibility of having either/or goaltending and basket interference on a throw-in? Off the top of my head, I think the its possilbe for basket interference, but I don't think the throw in meets all the qualifications for goaltending. One rule cites it can only occur on a try, while the other doesn't say it specifically.

See how confused I am?

But in my GUT, I think you can have both.......can anybody help me with the specific rules to prove/disprove these violations occuring on a throw-in?

I'd sleep better tonight.........thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2001, 10:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 122
Talking

Yes in NCAA rules you may have BI on a throw in. It is rule 9-16 A.R. 24(page 112). The rule book goes over this play in it.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2001, 10:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 962
Send a message via AIM to Tim Roden
Yes on BI. 9.11.2c in the case book deals with BI in the NF case book. It is not an attempt for goal so I don't see why we could have goaltending.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2001, 11:25am
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
As stated above, yes on BI...Rule 4 - definition for goaltending in NCAA book specifically states that it must be during a field goal try, so no goaltending on a pass or throw-in...
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2001, 01:45pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Quote:
Originally posted by Tim Roden
Yes on BI. 9.11.2c in the case book deals with BI in the NF case book. It is not an attempt for goal so I don't see why we could have goaltending.
Tim - for years I, too, never understood why there could be a goaltending call on a throwin for exactly the same reasons you state - it is not a try for goal and, if it goes in, it's a violation anyway.

However, I remember Camron Rust posting a response that explained why it was equitible to have this call, because somehow it balanced off something the offense could do, and made the penalty for the offense and defense congruent.

I don't exactly remember his reasoning, but I do remember it seemed to make sense. Perhaps he could repost it.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2001, 02:04pm
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
There can't be goaltending on a throw-in...there can be Basket Interference...as said before, to have goaltending, there must be a "field-goal try" (quoting the NCAA book...a throw-in does not qualify as a field-goal try...
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2001, 04:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 306
Basket Interference...Yes. Goaltending...No. No try therefore no goaltending. Basket Interference has a live ball; it doesn't matter how the ball got there (i.e. throw-in, try, etc.).
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2001, 12:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Quote:
Originally posted by Tim Roden
Yes on BI. 9.11.2c in the case book deals with BI in the NF case book. It is not an attempt for goal so I don't see why we could have goaltending.
Tim - for years I, too, never understood why there could be a goaltending call on a throwin for exactly the same reasons you state - it is not a try for goal and, if it goes in, it's a violation anyway.

However, I remember Camron Rust posting a response that explained why it was equitible to have this call, because somehow it balanced off something the offense could do, and made the penalty for the offense and defense congruent.

I don't exactly remember his reasoning, but I do remember it seemed to make sense. Perhaps he could repost it.
I can't seem to find my old post that you claim I made (either in the electronic nor the organic storage). But, I will try to re-think my former thoughts...and post them if I can figure it out.

Bakset Interference can occur by either the offense or defense on a throw-in.

Goaltending on a throw-in is not possilbe...must be a try for goaltending.

So, is the question is why BI for both, or even BI for anyone???

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2001, 01:23pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett

However, I remember Camron Rust posting a response that explained why it was equitible to have this call, because somehow it balanced off something the offense could do, and made the penalty for the offense and defense congruent.

I don't exactly remember his reasoning, but I do remember it seemed to make sense. Perhaps he could repost it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron RustI can't seem to find my old post that you claim I made (either in the electronic nor the organic storage). But, I will try to re-think my former thoughts...and post them if I can figure it out.
Camron - if I can shake the cobwebs out for a minute, I think your post had to do with what could happen if their was no BI calls. It had something to do with defending alley-oop passes as they passed over the basket - I think.

Maybe it was this: the BI rule is not dependent on the ball being a try or not. It applies on a pass over the basket, so it would apply on a throwin. If the rule only applied on trys, we would have to decide if a pass over the basket (not on throwins, but during play) was a missed try or not. Then the NF would have to pass a new rule similar to the three-point revision they passed this year. It's much easier and cleaner to just extend the BI rule to throwins even though it is counter-intuitive, I guess.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1