The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Goal Tending Goal Tending
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 25, 2008, 10:50pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 8
Goal Tending
I dont have a case book so i thouhgt i ask you guys. Watching a jv game and A1 made an attempt missed completly and B1 goes up for the rebound hitting the net. The refs called this goaltending im jsut curious as to if this is or not.
__________________
Young And Stupid
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 25, 2008, 10:57pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Richmond, IN
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotties7125
I dont have a case book so i thouhgt i ask you guys. Watching a jv game and A1 made an attempt missed completly and B1 goes up for the rebound hitting the net. The refs called this goaltending im jsut curious as to if this is or not.
If I understand your play, A1 shoots misses badly, B1 goes up for the rebound hitting the net on the way up.

If no part of the ball is on the rim or the imaginary cylinder above the rim which has the ring as its base then this is nothing and even if it was it would never be goal-tending.

If the ball was on the rim or in the imaginary cylinder and B1 hits the net, the call would be basket interference.
__________________
It is what it is!!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 25, 2008, 11:00pm
Official & Member
  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotties7125
I dont have a case book so i thouhgt i ask you guys. Watching a jv game and A1 made an attempt missed completly and B1 goes up for the rebound hitting the net. The refs called this goaltending im jsut curious as to if this is or not.
Based on your grammar and punctuation, I'm not clear on the play you're describing. However, if the defender had his hands in the net while the ball was on the ring or in the cylinder, it would be basket interference, not goaltending.
__________________
Calling it both ways...since 1999
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 25, 2008, 11:06pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Zebra
Based on your grammar and punctuation, I'm not clear on the play you're describing. However, if the defender had his hands in the net while the ball was on the ring or in the cylinder, it would be basket interference, not goaltending.
Sorry about the grammer not a big fan of typing. The best way i can put it was no the ball was not in the cylinder above
the rim. When Player B1 touched the net the ball was in the cornor of the rim and back board.
__________________
Young And Stupid
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 25, 2008, 11:08pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Richmond, IN
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotties7125
Sorry about the grammer not a big fan of typing. The best way i can put it was no the ball was not in the cylinder above
the rim. When Player B1 touched the net the ball was in the cornor of the rim and back board.
Read previous post...Basket Interference not Goal-tending.
__________________
It is what it is!!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 25, 2008, 11:16pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimlet25id
Read previous post...Basket Interference not Goal-tending.
Ok Then the offical must of duffed this one he called it goal tending and couting the basket.
__________________
Young And Stupid
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 25, 2008, 11:28pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Richmond, IN
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotties7125
Ok Then the offical must of duffed this one he called it goal tending and couting the basket.
Either way you would still count the basket for the "A" team. B/I & G/T carry the same penalty on the defensive team.
__________________
It is what it is!!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 26, 2008, 12:32am
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimlet25id
If no part of the ball is on the rim or the imaginary cylinder above the rim which has the ring as its base then this is nothing and even if it was it would never be goal-tending.

If the ball was on the rim or in the imaginary cylinder and B1 hits the net, the call would be basket interference.
It's not BI to touch the basket while the ball is in the cylinder. It's nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 26, 2008, 05:55am
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotties7125
Ok Then the offical must of duffed this one he called it goal tending and couting the basket.
He's not the only one.
Listen to Bob Jenkins. He has it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimlet25id
If I understand your play, A1 shoots misses badly, B1 goes up for the rebound hitting the net on the way up.

If no part of the ball is on the rim or the imaginary cylinder above the rim which has the ring as its base then this is nothing and even if it was it would never be goal-tending.

If the ball was on the rim or in the imaginary cylinder and B1 hits the net, the call would be basket interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Zebra
Based on your grammar and punctuation, I'm not clear on the play you're describing. However, if the defender had his hands in the net while the ball was on the ring or in the cylinder, it would be basket interference, not goaltending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
It's not BI to touch the basket while the ball is in the cylinder. It's nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 26, 2008, 10:02am
Official & Member
  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
It's not BI to touch the basket while the ball is in the cylinder. It's nothing.
If the ball has fallen through the ring, isn't it in the cylinder? or is it only considered a cylinder above the ring?
__________________
Calling it both ways...since 1999
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 26, 2008, 10:14am
In Memoriam
  
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Zebra
If the ball has fallen through the ring, isn't it in the cylinder? or is it only considered a cylinder above the ring?
Rule 4-6-2.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 26, 2008, 02:51pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 8
ok Thank you very much.
__________________
Young And Stupid
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 26, 2008, 06:06pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Richmond, IN
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
It's not BI to touch the basket while the ball is in the cylinder. It's nothing.
Let me rephrase no BI if the net is touched while the ball is off the rim & in the imaginary cylinder. The ball would have to be touched in order for this to be BI. If the ball is on or in then BI would apply

Rule 4-6-2...Touches the ball or any part of the basket (including the net) while the ball is on or within either basket.

I read this to say that if the ball is in the cylinder not the imaginary cylinder, but the cylinder of the basket (RIM) and the net is touched then that would be BI. (This might be what BOB is saying anyway)

In the OP's play the ball is on the ring when the net is touched, BI.
__________________
It is what it is!!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 26, 2008, 08:27pm
In Memoriam
  
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimlet25id
If the ball was on the rim or in the imaginary cylinder and B1 hits the net, the call would be basket interference.
You can rephrase it, but your re-phrasing is 100% diametrically opposite to what you stated above. As per NFHS rule 4-6-1&2, you were completely wrong. That's what Bob was telling you.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 26, 2008, 08:47pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Richmond, IN
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
You can rephrase it, but your re-phrasing is 100% diametrically opposite to what you stated above. As per NFHS rule 4-6-2, you were completely wrong. That's what Bob was telling you.
Can't get nothing by you JR!!!! I got to writing to quickly between BI and GT and didn't take the time to comprehend what I wrote....thus why I said let me rephrase!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimlet25id
If no part of the ball is on the rim or the imaginary cylinder above the rim which has the ring as its base then this is nothing and even if it was it would never be goal-tending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimlet25id
If the ball was on the rim or in the imaginary cylinder and B1 hits the net, the call would be basket interference.
"DELETE IMAGINARY"

Your right! I was wrong! Thanks for being so quick to point that out.
__________________
It is what it is!!
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Goal Tending satellite_6 Basketball 18 Sat Jan 12, 2008 04:18pm
Goal tending or no? (WASH/UConn) gostars Basketball 27 Sun Mar 26, 2006 07:28pm
Goal tending after block Damian Basketball 2 Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:01pm
goal tending ohad_d Basketball 0 Sat Jan 04, 2003 04:19pm
goal tending John Schaefferkoetter Basketball 4 Thu Dec 19, 2002 11:45am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33am.

The Official Forum - Archive - Top


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1