More GT questions with no restrictions on who can hijack the thread, DAN!!

[rainmaker]

1.So, if a B player goaltends a free throw, it's both a violation AND a technical? That's how it appears. If she goaltends the first of a one-and-one and the ball goes in anyway, A1 gets the bonus. But if B1 goaltends and the ball doesn't go in, does A1 get the bonus anyway? And they there is the T shots for any A players, right?

2. If A2 goaltends A1's free throw, it's NOT a technical? That seems weird. Basically from looking at 9.12 Sit B it looks like legalisticly speaking, A can't commit goaltending. "The ball becomes dead when the lane violation occurs and the goaltending is ignored." Interesting.

3. There is no GT on a throw-in since it can't be a try, but there could be BI. Correct?

[BktBallRef]

1. Yes. Yes.

2. It's not a T because A can't goaltend.

3. Correct.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

1. Yes. Yes.

2. It's not a T because A can't goaltend.

3. Correct.

1. Thank you, thank you.

2. Thank you, and...

3. Thank you!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

2. If A2 goaltends A1's free throw, it's NOT a technical? That seems weird. Basically from looking at 9.12 Sit B it looks like legalisticly speaking, A can't commit goaltending. "The ball becomes dead when the lane violation occurs and the goaltending is ignored." Interesting.

It's confusing because the Penalty section in rule 9-12-2 says, "If the violation is at a team's own basket, no points can be scored, and the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. [that's not the confusing part.] See 10-3-10 for additional penalty for goaltending during a free throw." Then 10-3-10 says, "...shall not goaltend during a free-throw" and the penalty is basically a technical foul. It doesn't differentiate between offensive and defensive. The only way to see that distinction clearly is to read the case book.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

3. There is no GT on a throw-in since it can't be a try, but there could be BI. Correct?

I told you exactly that in the original fascist controlled thread without telling you why. You've apparently discovered the why.

Before we close the thread let's enjoy this together, shall we?

http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.asp...upid%20videos/

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Before we close the thread let's enjoy this together, shall we?

http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.asp...upid%20videos/

Wow! A video for kids who want to grow up to be coaches!!!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I told you exactly that in the original fascist controlled thread without telling you why. You've apparently discovered the why.

Before we close the thread let's enjoy this together, shall we?

http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.asp...upid%20videos/

Okay, well, whatever.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

1.So, if a B player goaltends a free throw, it's both a violation AND a technical? That's how it appears. If she goaltends the first of a one-and-one and the ball goes in anyway, A1 gets the bonus. But if B1 goaltends and the ball doesn't go in, does A1 get the bonus anyway? And they there is the T shots for any A players, right?

2. If A2 goaltends A1's free throw, it's NOT a technical? That seems weird. Basically from looking at 9.12 Sit B it looks like legalisticly speaking, A can't commit goaltending. "The ball becomes dead when the lane violation occurs and the goaltending is ignored." Interesting.

3. There is no GT on a throw-in since it can't be a try, but there could be BI. Correct?

1. Yes, both violation and a technical foul if the DEFENSE goaltends during a FT attempt. If done on the first attempt of a 1-1, it doesn't matter if the ball goes in or not. You know that the ball becomes dead at the time of the violation and that the point is awarded. The second FT attempt is then awarded due to the first one being credited.

2. Let's look at the definition of goaltending given in 4-22.

"Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while it is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, or an opponent of the free thrower touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt."

Does that tell you why it is not a T?

If you ever see a teammate of the FT shooter do this, then penalize with either 9-1-3 or 9-1-8. One of those two items must have happened. If 9-1-8 occurred, it happened first and is the controlling violation. However, if no one moved their feet beyond the plane (picture the FT shooter standing all the way over on the side such that a teammate standing in a marked-lane space could have his try hit his extended arms), I state that the thrower violated 9-1-3 because the try touched another player before entering or striking the ring, and 4-20-3 states that the FT ends when the ball touches another player.

3. Correct, and you got the proper reason!

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, well, whatever.

Clever response

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Clever response

which is the sophisticated version of, "Good comeback, Potsie!"? That's me. Always on my toes.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It's confusing because the Penalty section in rule 9-12-2 says, "If the violation is at a team's own basket, no points can be scored, and the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. [that's not the confusing part.] See 10-3-10 for additional penalty for goaltending during a free throw." Then 10-3-10 says, "...shall not goaltend during a free-throw" and the penalty is basically a technical foul. It doesn't differentiate between offensive and defensive. The only way to see that distinction clearly is to read the case book.

Juulie, remember that the players used to be allowed to enter the lane upon the release of the shot. In this case, goal tending by the offense was entirely possible. It explains why they state "if the violation is at a team's own basket...." Also, imagine a player with really long arms who is able to reach the hoop without crossing his feet into the lane....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Juulie, remember that the players used to be allowed to enter the lane upon the release of the shot. In this case, goal tending by the offense was entirely possible. It explains why they state "if the violation is at a team's own basket...." Also, imagine a player with really long arms who is able to reach the hoop without crossing his feet into the lane....

Adam, would you please go read the definition provided in post #8.