UCLA luckiest team in the country

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Brad

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.

I finally saw the play last night...not on YouTube but on ESPNHD Sportcenter.

That ball definitely went over the backboard. You could see the ball through the glass on it's upward flight. The only path that could carry a ball into the basket from a position where you could see it through the glass is over the backboard....unless he somehow shot a curve ball.

The purpose of the rule goes back to an inbounds play where the thrower would toss the ball up over the board and a teammate would catch it and dunk it. The board effectively prevented a defender for making a play on the ball between the throw and the catch....a guaranteed score. In this case, the shooter was sufficiently away from the board (to the side) and the defenders had a legitimate chance to defend the shot. The path the ball took was not relevant to the defense of the score.

Conclusion:
Letter of the rule: violation
Spirt of the rule: no violation

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I finally saw the play last night...not on YouTube but on ESPNHD Sportcenter.

That ball definitely went over the backboard. You could see the ball through the glass on it's upward flight. The only path that could carry a ball into the basket from a position where you could see it through the glass is over the backboard....unless he somehow shot a curve ball.

The purpose of the rule goes back to an inbounds play where the thrower would toss the ball up over the board and a teammate would catch it and dunk it. The board effectively prevented a defender for making a play on the ball between the throw and the catch....a guaranteed score. In this case, the shooter was sufficiently away from the board (to the side) and the defenders had a legitimate chance to defend the shot. The path the ball took was not relevant to the defense of the score.

Conclusion:
Letter of the rule: violation
Spirt of the rule: no violation

If the spirit of the rule is only to deny the inbounds pass over the backboard (and I agree that is where the rule originated) then why did the rules committee make it an OOB violation and not just a throw-in violation?

[Adam]

You're using horse and pick-up rules to justify an NCAA rule change?

Wow.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That ball definitely went over the backboard. You could see the ball through the glass on it's upward flight. The only path that could carry a ball into the basket from a position where you could see it through the glass is over the backboard....unless he somehow shot a curve ball.

Camron, you are one of the most precise posters here so I'm a little surprised that you would write this without any qualification.

Obviously what you see very much depends on the position of the camera.

Care to clarify?

[Raymond]

Well, I think the fact that folks have to replay it 5 or 6 times to make a decision on the backboard play should vindicate the officials on the court who had to make a decision within a split second.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, I think the fact that folks have to replay it 5 or 6 times to make a decision on the backboard play should vindicate the officials on the court who had to make a decision within a split second.

Shouldn't stop us from doing 10 pages of posts arguing about it, though.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, I think the fact that folks have to replay it 5 or 6 times to make a decision on the backboard play should vindicate the officials on the court who had to make a decision within a split second.

Exactly!!!
What people should be talking about is the double dribble call by Libby at 15:38 of the second half. The Cal player caught the pass, threw it to the floor with two hands and went and recovered the ball. I think it was just a brain fart on Dave's part or else he doesn't know you can do that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Exactly!!!
What people should be talking about is the double dribble call by Libby at 15:38 of the second half. The Cal player caught the pass, threw it to the floor with two hands and went and recovered the ball. I think it was just a brain fart on Dave's part or else he doesn't know you can do that.

Do you really think this is even on the table?

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Do you really think this is even on the table?

That's why I said it was a brain fart. However, he's not the first one I've seen call the "pass to yourself" a travel or double dribble. I have even heard Div. 1 observers berate an official at camp for not calling a violation on the same play -- A1 catches a pass, starts to make a cross court pass, sees the defender shoot the passing lane and chases his pass. He was the first to touch the ball... all he did was start a dribble -- no violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Camron, you are one of the most precise posters here so I'm a little surprised that you would write this without any qualification.

Obviously what you see very much depends on the position of the camera.

Care to clarify?

Yes, I'll clarify. Except for a most extreme position, the position of the camera doesn't really matter....if you see it through the glass, it can only come over the top. The only position that that could yield different conclusion would be a position such that the line of sight is almost parallel to the board....looking along a line between the basket and the ring..and then reflections would likely prevent you from seening through the board anyway. Any camera angle more than a few degress in front of the backboard works. The camera angle they showed was from approximately the C position...but elevated.

The converse is NOT true, however. You can't say that it didn't go over the board if you don't see it through the glass...in that case there are several camera angles (e.g. orthogonal to the path of the ball) that don't tell you anything. In this case, camera angle from the same side of the floor as the shooter wouldn't be useful...either positively or negatively.

To describe the geometry of the objects another way...if at the time the ball is level with the basket there is any part of the backboard between the any part of the ball and the center of basket (using diameters of 18" for the rim and 9" for the ball), the ball can't get directly into the basket without at least part of the ball going over the backboard. If you consider the possibility a front-iron bounce, you could conceivably get approximately a little more room...about 3-4" at the theoretical limit.

Now, considering that the framing/padding of the backboard obcures the first 2-3" of visibility through the edge, whatever you see is already beyond that which could be used in a front-iron shot....So, if you see it through the board...it can only get the the basket by going over the top.

[BillyMac]

This is an easy way to describe the camera angle:

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I'll clarify. Except for a most extreme position, the position of the camera doesn't really matter....if you see it through the glass, it can only come over the top.

So my friend Occam would like to know what if the camera is actually behind the backboard?

(he would also like you to limit your reply to 2500 words or less)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

So my friend Occam would like to know what if the camera is actually behind the backboard?

(he would also like you to limit your reply to 2500 words or less)

The assuption was that the camera was in front of the board...and I even referred to other locations being perhaps useless. That said, similar geometrical arguments could be constructed for your question. However, I suspect you're not really asking to get the answer so I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers.

[blindzebra]

I saw it 3 more times today and no way can you see the ball in flight through the backboard.

The backboard is in the lane, for Shipp to have shot it over the top he'd have had to be in the paint and he wasn't.

One more time, the shot came up over the side and top edge of the backboard and not from behind it.

[Brad]

Funny... ESPN ripped the officials after the game, stating that they missed the violation -- quoting the rule on the screen, etc.

Then, Sunday night, the shot was #1 on plays of the week.

Can't have it both ways guys!