UCLA luckiest team in the country

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

No Camron, I am getting to an answer. You originally said this:

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.

Now we're agreeng that for MANY views whether or not you can see the ball through the glass is irrelevant.

I'm trying to get you to agree that for the VAST MAJORITY of views this is irrelevant, which I think you can easily do once you've gone through your exercise yourself.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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.

That simply isn't true, from a physics standpoint.

[Raymond]

Maybe they should put up a "foul" pole at each end of the backboard?

[lpneck]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Maybe they should put up a "foul" pole at each end of the backboard?

Actually, this is the key to the argument. I would have had no call in the UCLA game, and here is my reasoning.

I have always felt that the ball passing over the backboard is similar to a field goal/extra point in football. In other words, let's assume there is a pole that extends from the edge of the backboard straight up. For me, to be a violation, I want the entire ball to pass between those uprights.

If the ball cuts the corner, as in this play, the ball has not gone directly over the backboard.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by lpneck

Actually, this is the key to the argument. I would have had no call in the UCLA game, and here is my reasoning.

I have always felt that the ball passing over the backboard is similar to a field goal/extra point in football. In other words, let's assume there is a pole that extends from the edge of the backboard straight up. For me, to be a violation, I want the entire ball to pass between those uprights.

If the ball cuts the corner, as in this play, the ball has not gone directly over the backboard.

If I'm not mistaken, if a field goal passes over the upright, as long as any part of the ball is inside the upright extended, the kick is good.

Obviously this rule means nothing in the context of basketball, but IMO a part of the ball passed over the backboard. Not the entire ball. That's the point of the arguement I want answered - does the entire ball have to pass over, only a sliver of the ball, more than half the ball?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

That's the point of the arguement I want answered - does the entire ball have to pass over, only a sliver of the ball, more than half the ball?

49% is legal. 51% is a violation.

50% is a do-over.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

49% is legal. 51% is a violation.

50% is a do-over.

I'm 113% sure you're wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm 113% sure you're wrong.

Shut up.

[just another ref]

I don't know if this is significant or not, but consider the basket interference rule. ....while any part of the ball is within the imaginary cylinder......

Couldn't this rule just as easily say "if any part of the ball passes over the backboard" as opposed to "when it passes over the backboard" ??

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

49% is legal. 51% is a violation.

50% is a do-over.

Geeze, another close primary.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

If I'm not mistaken, if a field goal passes over the upright, as long as any part of the ball is inside the upright extended, the kick is good.

No, it is not, at least in NFHS and NCAA.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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

If you look just inside the right edge of the board, you can see part of the ball going up. Its there if you want to see it. I replayed it several time to confirm...it's there.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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.

No he doesn't.

Front tip of the rim is 24" from the backboard. Backboard is 6ft wide and 4ft from the baseline, lane is 12ft wide. The point on the baseline that leads over the corner to the very front tip of the rim is 3' outside the lane...and that is just to the front tip....and unmakeable point without crossing clearly over the top. The path to the center of the basket directly over the corner and from the baseline starts 4.5' outside the lane....and that spot is just barely makeable on a lucky day.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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

There you have it...you even say it crossed over the top. Nothing about the rule says anything about the ball needing to be directly behind the backboard....only that it crosses over the top.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you look just inside the right edge of the board, you can see part of the ball going up. Its there if you want to see it. I replayed it several time to confirm...it's there.

I think Camron really touches on the operative point here. He had to replay it several times to make a decision. The officials on the court have a split second based on where they happen to be standing at the time. Ya' gotta go with the official's call on the spot. Put yourself in their place.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

No Camron, I am getting to an answer. You originally said this:



Now we're agreeng that for MANY views whether or not you can see the ball through the glass is irrelevant.

I'm trying to get you to agree that for the VAST MAJORITY of views this is irrelevant, which I think you can easily do once you've gone through your exercise yourself.

You're still incorrect. For those angles where you CAN see it through the glass, all but a couple very extreme angles (nearly parallel with the backboard) ARE relevant. If you see it through the glass, it can ONLY cross over the top...period. That is all I claimed.

However, for many/most angles where you can't see it through the glass, you can't make any conclusion from that information....and I never said you could. For some of them, you can conclude that it didn't go over the top, but for only a few.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you look just inside the right edge of the board, you can see part of the ball going up. Its there if you want to see it. I replayed it several time to confirm...it's there.


No he doesn't.

Front tip of the rim is 24" from the backboard. Backboard is 6ft wide and 4ft from the baseline, lane is 12ft wide. The point on the baseline that leads over the corner to the very front tip of the rim is 3' outside the lane...and that is just to the front tip....and unmakeable point without crossing clearly over the top. The path to the center of the basket directly over the corner and from the baseline starts 4.5' outside the lane....and that spot is just barely makeable on a lucky day.



There you have it...you even say it crossed over the top. Nothing about the rule says anything about the ball needing to be directly behind the backboard....only that it crosses over the top.

You are wrong.

The Fed casebook says passes DIRECTLY over.

The intent of the rule is to keep the ball from going DIRECTLY from front to back or back to front.

Shipps shot would have hit the SIDE of the backboard had it been lower. The shot passed over the side of the BB and the top edge of the BB, you know the parts of the BB that are inbounds legally.