college goaltending question

[Johnny Ringo]

Thanks ... I had always been told and under the understanding that once the ball hit glass it can't be touched. I can't recall ever calling this wrong - so, I now will never make this mistake!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I took all of the other criteria as given. In the context of his question, I was not dealing with a ball that strikes the backboard, but is below the level or the ring, or has no chance to enter the basket, or is in the cylinder.

Of course, to answer the general case, you are correct to point out that all of those other factors need to be considered.

No, they don't. If the try is on its upward flight, then it's not goaltending, period. You don't need to consider anything else. Because in order for it to be goaltending, it MUST be on it's downward flight. Therefore, if it's going up, then it's not goaltending. It might be 100 other things, but it's not GT. Nevadaref's answer was absolutely correct as stated. As long as the try is going up, it's not goaltending to touch it.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No, they don't. If the try is on its upward flight, then it's not goaltending, period. You don't need to consider anything else. Because in order for it to be goaltending, it MUST be on it's downward flight. Therefore, if it's going up, then it's not goaltending. It might be 100 other things, but it's not GT. Nevadaref's answer was absolutely correct as stated. As long as the try is going up, it's not goaltending to touch it.

No. The question was can the ball be blocked off the glass legally. It was such a good question Johnny Ringo asked it twice. Nevada's answer directly addressed Johnny Ringo and he said "The answer is yes, it can be touched and NOT be goaltending as long as the ball is still on its way up."

In a vacuum Nevada's answer is correct. In regard to how the backboard comes into play in this rule he is wrong. The backboard has nothing to do with GT, whether the ball is going up, down or levitating in mid air.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

In a vacuum Nevada's answer is correct.

In a vacuum or out of it. If the ball is going up, no goaltending, regardless of anything else (with the one exception of goaltending a free throw). The backboard is irrelevent, as you point out, but that doesn't make Nevada's statement "so incomplete as to be just plain wrong". It's entirely correct. It just doesn't address the further misunderstanding about the backboard.

I understand your point, but I don't want some newbie to come along and see the following exchange:

OP: Is it goaltending to block the shot off the backboard if it's still on the way up.
Nevada: It's never goaltending to hit the try on the way up.
Dan: That's incomplete and incorrect.

Yikes! That gives a very bad impression of the actual rule. I know what you were getting at and you're right that Nevadaref's answer doesn't address the point that the backboard has nothing to do with goaltending or basket interference. But it is equally true that it's never goaltending to touch the try on its upward flight (unless it's a free throw).

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

On page 66 of last year's Simplified & Illustrated there is a picture of a try hitting the backboard above the level of the ring and continuing on its upward flight. The shot is now blocked by a defender while it is still outside of the cylinder. (I wish I could post the picture, but I don't know how. Perhaps someone else can.)

I'm going to attempt to attach the picture that you are talking about.

I couldn't get the attachment to upload even though it was below the file size requirement?!

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In a vacuum or out of it. If the ball is going up, no goaltending, regardless of anything else (with the one exception of goaltending a free throw). The backboard is irrelevent, as you point out, but that doesn't make Nevada's statement "so incomplete as to be just plain wrong". It's entirely correct. It just doesn't address the further misunderstanding about the backboard.

Right.

In other words it's so incomplete as to be just wrong.

Glad we agree.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

In other words it's so incomplete as to be just wrong

You can keep typing it. It doesn't make it any more true.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

You can keep typing it. It doesn't make it any more true.

You can keep tilting at that windmill, but Nevada and I both think you're wrong, scappie-doo.

In fact, here's what he said. Feel free to continue the argument with him, 'cause I'm done.

Of course, to answer the general case, you are correct to point out that all of those other factors need to be considered.

[Nevadaref]

Sometimes the message can get lost in the semantics.

Whether I was right in the first place or not doesn't really matter to me. I believe that we have helped Johnny R to have a much better understanding of this aspect of officiating and that is what we strive to do here and what is important to me.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You can keep tilting at that windmill, but Nevada and I both think you're wrong, scappie-doo.

In fact, here's what he said. Feel free to continue the argument with him, 'cause I'm done.

He only said that to be polite because he's afraid of getting on your bad side. But I know you're a big pussycat.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

He only said that to be polite because he's afraid of getting on your bad side. But I know you're a big pussycat.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But I know you're a big pussy.

Agree.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree.

[Scrapper1]

Can I at least have a cookie to go with the juice?