UCLA luckiest team in the country

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Brad

The rule is "The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction." It is the "passes over" part that needs to be looked at. I don't think that you can say that the UCLA shot "passed over" the backboard necessarily. It was barely over the corner of the backboard.

Your words: "over".
Your words: "corner of the backboard".

My questions: Is the corner of the backboard, part of the backboard? Is the corner of a piece of wood part of the piece of wood? My guess, yes it is, for both of my questions. By my logic, and your words, the ball passed over the backboard.

However, it certainly was a tough call, and, in my opinion, after watching the replay, it was as close to being a violation, as it was to being a legal basket.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Gottlieb was a douchebag before that comment

True ... good point.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Brad

Also, Doug Gottlieb is a complete douchebag for his comments about Dave Libbey last night.

That is all.

So don't you think it's worse to be an INcomplete douchebag?

Need Douchebag of the Universe to weigh in here...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Your words: "over".
Your words: "corner of the backboard".

My words don't really matter ... It's the words in the rule book and case book that count.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My questions: Is the corner of the backboard, part of the backboard? Is the corner of a piece of wood part of the piece of wood? My guess, yes it is, for both of my questions. By my logic, and your words, the ball passed over the backboard.

Well, I can probably use your words and MY logic to say that it didn't

Seriously, I think that you missed what I was saying earlier. You have to focus on the part of the rule that says "passes over" -- to me the UCLA shot does not meet this definition. You have to use common sense and the spirit of the rule.

It will be interesting to see what the NCAA says and if there is any clarification, but I am sticking with the officials on this one.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Brad

It will be interesting to see what the NCAA says and if there is any clarification, but I am sticking with the officials on this one.

I will be very surpised if there is a clarification from the ncaa on this that changes the current interpretation. They got it right, regardless of what the press might think.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Need Douchebag of the Universe to weigh in here...

I agree.

And when it comes from the top, you can take it to the bank!



Probably the greatest honor that I've ever received......

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Brad

Seriously, I think that you missed what I was saying earlier. You have to focus on the part of the rule that says "passes over", to me the UCLA shot does not meet this definition. You have to use common sense and the spirit of the rule.

Brad: You have described the replay as "It was barely over the corner of the backboard."

Here's the NFHS Rule (I don't have the NCAA rule): Note: When the rectangular backboard is used, the ball is out of bounds if it passes over the backboard.

By "it", I assume that you mean the ball.

You used "barely", not nearly. Barely means it went over, not by much, but it went over. If you had used nearly, that would have meant it didn't go over, it just missed.

You described the part of the backboard that it went over as the "corner of the backboard". If you're walking by a table, and hit your hip on the corner of the table, it hurts, because the corner of the table is part of the table. If you jump high enough, you can hit your head on the bottom corner of the backboard, and it will hurt, because all corners of the backboard are part of the backboard.

So by your own description, not my description, of what you observed in the replay: The ball barely, which means it went over, not by much, but it went over, went over the corner of the backboard, which, because it would hurt, is part of the backboard, which is basically describing a violation of the rule.

If this is what happened, another part of the equation could be "it". How much of the ball needs to go over the backboard? I believe that in soccer a rolling ball must be completely over the boundary line to be considered out of bounds. In this play, how much of the ball went over the backboard, just the edge of the ball, 50% of the ball's diameter, more than 50% of the ball's diameter, or the whole ball. I believe that that's the key to this situation being called correctly, or incorrectly, and, at this point, I have nothing to offer regarding the definition of the ball in this situation. I believe that the definition of the ball, if it can be defined in this situation, is the most difficult part of this situation to interpret.

As I stated in an earlier thread: It certainly was a tough call, and, in my opinion, after watching the replay, it was as close to being a violation, as it was to being a legal basket.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would like to see more opinions on the correctable error part of this discussion:

NFHS: Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in:
a. Failure to award a merited free throw.
b. Awarding an unmerited free throw.
c. Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw.
d. Attempting a free throw at the wrong basket.
e. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

If this had been a NFHS game, could the officials, within the time frame of a correctable error, stop the game, discuss the possibility that the over-the-backboard rule may have been inadvertently set aside on the play, and decide to count, or cancel the score? Isn't that what 2-10 is for?

If an official erroneously counts a basket during a player control foul, and the scorekeeper adds two points to the team's total score, can't an official correct the error during the correctable error time frame, and cancel the score?

Here's one we might see a couple times a season: Two man game, three point shot is taken from foul line extended, on lead's side, possible "dual coverage" area, one official signals three attempt, and three score, the other official doesn't signal anything, scorekeeper adds three points to the team total, one official decides to discuss the play with partner, blows the whistle after the throwin after the made field goal to discuss, time limit for correctable error hasn't expired, officials decide that the shooter did step on the line. Can't the officials correct the erroneously counted score by canceling the extra point?

In my opinion, all three of these situations involve correctable errors, that can be corrected in the prescribed time frame. These are not bookkeeping errors, or mistakes, that can be corrected up until the officials' jurisdiction ends. Nor are these errors, or mistakes, that do not fall under Rule 2-10, and cannot be corrected.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, just be sure to correct me no later than during the first dead ball after the clock has properly started.

I hope it is Billy because that's exactly what we did in our last game of the season. The scenario that I posted is exactly what happened in our game. I was L so I had no idea whether it went over the backboard or not. But the T, who was also the R, came to me as the teams were leaving the floor and said it went over the backboard. We agreed that it was within the CE rule to cancel the basket and he did.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Brad: You have described the replay as "It was barely over the corner of the backboard."

Quit trying to dissect my words in an attempt to make your point.

I am saying that it should be a legal basket and NOT an OOB violation both by the spirit and the letter of the rule.

You cannot parse what I wrote earlier and try to make me say something else.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I hope it is Billy because that's exactly what we did in our last game of the season. The scenario that I posted is exactly what happened in our game. I was L so I had no idea whether it went over the backboard or not. But the T, who was also the R, came to me as the teams were leaving the floor and said it went over the backboard. We agreed that it was within the CE rule to cancel the basket and he did.

So how come he didn't call it at the time?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Brad

You cannot parse what I wrote earlier and try to make me say something else.

I'm not. You already said it, not me, "It was barely over the corner of the backboard" to describe what you saw on the replay.

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation of the call, all I'm saying is that by the way you described the call, it appears to be a violation.

Now, if you had said: "It was nearly over the corner of the backboard", then your description of the replay would match your interpretation.

Or, if you had said: "It was barely over the highest point of the backboard, but slightly off to one side", then your description of the replay would match your interpretation.

But you didn't say either of these, you described the replay as "It was barely over the corner of the backboard". That's a direct violation of the rule that states, "The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction."

As for me, from watching the replay, it was as close to being a violation, as it was to being a legal basket. I can't decide if it passed over the backboard, or not. I can't decide if it barely, or nearly, passed over the backboard, or not. I can't decide if it passed over the corner of the backboard, or the side of the backboard. And if I'm not sure of a call, I don't call it, and it's not a violation.

But you seem to be sure of the play: "It was barely over the corner of the backboard". Don't you see how your description of the replay contradicts your interpretation of the play? How does, "It was barely over the corner of the backboard", not match with, "The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction"?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can't decide if it passed over the backboard, or not. I can't decide if it barely, or nearly, passed over the backboard, or not. I can't decide if it passed over the corner of the backboard, or the side of the backboard.

I guess you are firmly in the "I don't know" camp then, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But you seem to sure of the play: "It was barely over the corner of the backboard". Don't you see how your description of the replay contradicts your interpretation of the play? How does, "It was barely over the corner of the backboard", not match with, "The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction"?

For the same reason that no official calls 3-seconds because a post players heel is on the lane line -- that's not the spirit of the rule. "Passing over" does not equal "10% of the ball was over the very edge of the backboard".

This play has never been and is not an OOB call... I guess that's all I can say about it. If you want to dissect words and get hyper-technical you are going to have to do that with someone else.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Brad

I guess you are firmly in the "I don't know" camp then, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. "Passing over" does not equal "10% of the ball was over the very edge of the backboard".

Finally, something we can both agree upon, other than the correct call, which we have agreed upon all along, the question regarding how much of the ball must pass over the top of the backboard. I did mention this in one of my posts:

"Another part of the equation could be "it". How much of the ball needs to go over the backboard? I believe that in soccer a rolling ball must be completely over the boundary line to be considered out of bounds. In this play, how much of the ball went over the backboard, just the edge of the ball, 50% of the ball's diameter, more than 50% of the ball's diameter, or the whole ball. I believe that that's the key to this situation being called correctly, or incorrectly, and, at this point, I have nothing to offer regarding the definition of the ball in this situation. I believe that the definition of the ball, if it can be defined in this situation, is the most difficult part of this situation to interpret."

But you didn't take a bite at it, not even a nibble, until now.

So now the question remains: How much of the ball must go over the top of the backboard to be considered to be passing over the top of the backboard? I don't know, and again, if I'm not sure of something, I'm not calling it a violation. Play on.

If this happens in one of my high school games, I hope that I'm the lead, looking at the rebounders in the paint, not the trail, looking at the flight of the ball.

Finally, and I think we can both agree on this, tough call, in either live action, or on the replay.

[lpbreeze]

Change the rule or these types of instances will just keep happening albeit they are unusual. It would be really bad to have a ref waive off a basket in a big game then turn out it should have counted. I guess the FIFA rule is anywhere? Excluding shots in the key would be a solution. Horse games, pickup games those shots outside the key are going to count and they should in NCAA and college.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by lpbreeze

Change the rule ..... Horse games, pickup games those shots outside the key are going to count and they should in NCAA and college.

This is a reason for a rule change?