I'm glad the basket counted because it looked like a great play. I just saw that Bird play two days ago. I think they said they didn't count it at first and then counted it after talking.
Perhaps they could change the rule to only if the offensive player is in the key. Otherwise it seems really difficult to tell. every kid practices that type of shot going over the backboard from the side. Underneath should be illegal

The word "completely" does not appear in the rule book.

So Tony, does that mean if any part of the ball passes over, it's a violation? That's always been my understanding. If so, I think this should have been called.

But I can sure see why it wasn't called. The angle to see it is beastly.

Rectangle Or Kidney ???
 

The ball is out of bounds when it touches or is touched by:
a. A player who is out of bounds.
b. Any other person, the floor, or any object on or outside a boundary.
c. The supports or back of the backboard.
d. The ceiling, overhead equipment or supports.
Note: When the rectangular backboard is used, the ball is out of bounds if it passes over the backboard.

The case book says if the ball passes directly over the backboard, it's a violation. But I can't find anything that says the entire ball must pass directly or completely over the basketball. So I'd like to see the reference BZ is basing his interp on.

My question is does this qualify as a correctable error?

Same situation in a HS game. Shot is taken with under 5 seconds remaining, goes over the backboard and in. Team B inbounds the ball as the horn sounds. The T comes to the R and says the ball passed over the backboard. This is during the first dead ball after the score. Can the basket be cancelled for erroneously counting a basket?

BTW, I just saw the shot for the first time. I would have counted it.

GO HEELS!!!! :D

RIght, when do the refs "misapply a rule" and when do they just goof uncorrectably?

I'd have to say that this is not a CE, for two main reasons.

1. The counting/cancelling a score rule seems to apply to situations where the official judged the situation correctly, but misapplied a rule. Here, the covering official judged it to be a legal shot (perhaps incorrectly), but correctly applied the rule that it should count.

2. If we go with what the T says here, we don't just have a canceled score - we have to go back and have a violation, which may necessitate the dreaded "do over."

I disagree. There is no "do-over." "Points scored, consumed time and additional activity, which may occur prior to the recognition of an error, shall not be nullified. "

I was wondering about the OOB call to put .07 seconds back on the clock. The ball isn't considert OOB until the ball TOUCHES something OOB, not when it crosses the OOB line, right? So...how could ANY time be put back on the clock in that situation?

I thought it hit the player with 1.5 seconds and then hit out of bounds with about .5 to go. Maybe the ball went straight up but think it hit something before time ran out. The clock stopped at .1. Cal put up a weak last shot. Why teams always seem to shoot an outside shot in those situations is strange.

As I said in the other thread, if the ball was ruled OOB, it should have been inbounded on the endline. They put 0.7 and inbounded on the sideline. If they had ruled a fist, there should have been 1.5, so I'm not sure what happened here.

Just watched video of the shot...my observations:

1. The shot BARELY crosses the corner of the backboard - I'd say less than a 1/4 of the ball. It's being described as a "horse" shot, but from where he shot it, he has a pretty straight line between ball and hoop, IMO. Certainly in the spirit of the rule, this shot should count; but even by the letter of the rule, I don't think it's a clear violation.

Cal coach asked about the shot during a T.O. and was told it was too close to call. I agree 100%.

2. The centre official has a perfect look at this play - it's almost directly on his sightline. Certainly, if Shipp had been further behind the board, he would have waved it off.

My $0.02.

I could see this as a CE. If, for example, one partner clearly saw it pass over the backboard, but didn't know the rule, and the other partner was busy ... doing something else, not sure what. Then they got together and discussed it within the time frame for correcting it.

The casebook uses the words passes directly over.

To me directly is intended to mean directly from the front to the back or directly from the back to the front and not over the corner.

I have a difficult time believing that shot passed DIRECTLY over the backboard, because it didn't.

I'd bet that had that shot not had enough air under it it would have struck the side of the backboard and not the back, and for it to fit the directly over stipulation it would need to strike the back.