UCLA luckiest team in the country
 

Thursday night a call goes their way at the end of regulation to allow them to force OT.
Today they get the benefit of the doubt on a shot that may have passed over the top of the backboard (from back to front) that wins the game by one with 1.5 seconds left.

Someone is looking out for this team right now.

Watching the replay, it certainly looked to pass over the backboard to me.

Very, very difficult play to call live.

Certainly none of the replays showed anything other than over the backboard. Which ref should have caught this? And then since no one did, is it reviewable?

It isn't reviewable. I believe the lead was on the side the shot came from, and the only official who would have had the angle would have been the C. I don't remember where he was when the shot was taken.

Arguing about this with a friend now. Can someone provide both NFHS and NCAA rules references?

Lead was on the other side from the shot, I"m pretty sure, since that's where the ball was inbounded, and there wasn't time to rotate? Shooter was close enough to the endline, that I can't think C would have missed it if he'd been looking. Perhaps everyone was just watching for contact. I mean, shooting from behind the backboard must be incredibly rare, not the sort of thing you automatically watch for, eh?

The shot was legal.

The ball must pass completely over from front to back or back to front, the shot went across the corner.

I sure hope you all aren't calling OOB violations for balls going across the corner of the back board.

I don't have my books handy but I'm "sure" that in both cases it's in rule 7-1 (talking about being OOB)

NCAA - 7-1-3...The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction.

Don't have my NFHS books at the moment.

You may be right. You may not. It looked to me like the entire ball was started behind the backboard and passed over it.

Bottom line here, this is one of those calls where you've gotta err on the side of counting the basket and not making a call unless there is an obvious and clear violation, especially if it's not reviewable, which it isn't. So I think they did the right thing by counting the basket. Dave Libbey was the C on that play BTW.

NFHS
7-1-2d NOTE: When the rectangular backboard is used, the ball is out of bounds if it passes over the backboard.

NCAA was posted by jdw.

Larry Bird ...
 

Larry Bird made a similar over the backboard from almost out of bounds shot at the Hartford (CT) Civic Center back when the Celtics would play a few home games every season in Hartford, kind of their home away from home.

The rule says "any direction." Your statement is false.

In FIBA, it is legal, as long as it does not touch any of the supports of the backboard.

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.

I think that's all the more reason to not allow this as a correctable error.

Why no T on UCLA for coming on to the floor with 0.1 remaining?

Also, they should've reset the clock all the way to 1.5 due to the violation.

Could have easily been a T.
Can't have a violation without a touch. With a touch some time has to come off, as in 0.3 seconds to leave it at 1.2.

The clock became dead when the UCLA player punched the ball. I was only watching the ESPN reruns, but I think that's what they went to the monitor to figure out what the time was when the punch occured.

Backboard Shot ...
 

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.

Gee, are you saying that we should be able to let the play go back and forth as long as the ball doesn't become dead.....maybe for 5-6 different possessions.....and at the first dead ball we can then get together and say "Hey, I think that we missed a goaltending call. Let's count the basket now."

My opinion?

Silly monkeys......

Imagine the backboard extended out the top to the ceiling...any spot on that extended backboard is directly over the backboard. If the ball passes through that extended backboard in any direction, it has passed over the backboard. The only question that is unanswered is how much of the ball? Any part? The center? The whole thing?

Me? I'm not calling it if it is just the edge of the ball....but will call it if it is the center but a little of the ball is still outside the plane of the backboard.

Good Point, But ...
 

Jurassic Referee: Good point. Forget about the goaltending call for now. I'm not ignoring it, I will get back to it shortly. I took the liberty of editing your post to reflect that.

Doesn't Rule 2-10 allow us to do exactly what you (edited) stated, once the officials are 100% sure that they are dealing with a correctable error? Let's look at a different example, let's say the example I gave of the three point shot that is later decided by the officials to be only a two point shot, with a few alterations, for sake of argument. At the time of the shot Team A is tied with Team B. The supposed three pointer puts Team A up by three points. The "play go(es) back and forth as long as the ball doesn't become dead, maybe for 5-6 different possessions, and at the first dead ball" one official, the one who thinks it was a two point shot, for the first time since the shot, decides to look at the scoreboard, sees that three points were added to Team A instead of the two he thought Team A should have received. Blows the whistle for a conference with his partner. Two Point Official: "Did you count that last basket as a two or three? I didn't see your signal before, or after, the attempt". Three Point Official: "I counted it as a three. I was 95% sure, but I got blocked out by the opponent right before the release of the ball. I'm sure that he was behind the arc a split second before the release. Did you get a better look?". Two Point Official: "Yes, I got a great look. Right before the release, the shooter just barely touched the line. I'm 100% sure. I guess that's why the coach is complaining." Three Point Official: "OK, I'll go along with you since you got a good, 100%, sure angle on the play. I'll go over to the table, invite the two coaches over, and I'll make sure that the last basket was recorded as a two pointer".

Could it happen, by rule, like this? I think that it could.

Now, the important question, the one that I wanted to revisit. Is the over-the backboard play, the player control foul counting the basket play, the two or three point play, or your goaltending play, covered by rule 2-10, specifically the part about erroneously counting or canceling a score?

Again, if, and it's a big if, these situations are intended to be covered by Rule 2-10, a large amount of time can pass between the error and the correction.

Bottom line for me:
Over the Backboard: Not sure if it's correctable.
Player Control Foul Basket Counted: Correctable Error.
Two Or Three Points: Correctable Error.
Goaltending: Not sure if it's corrrectable.

Looking forward to responses from Jurassic Referee, or from other Forum members.

Work It Out With A Pencil ...
 

I got it all figured out:

http://re3.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/m2/2299940630

Billy,

Your goaltending sitch is correctable and is an AR under ncaa 2.11 (correctable error rule).

You Tube Versions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXTQRCt8Zu4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfze65_u0c0

I think I may be changing my mind on this one, at least for NCAA. From the case book:

I guess, to the NCAA, this does count as erroneously counting a goal. It would be interesting to see it applied, though.

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.

I have never seen that called as an OOB and don't think it should be. The two D1 officials I discussed the play with last night did not think so either -- and one of them is on the Pac 10 roster (not in that game though).

Also, others are correct that this is not a reviewable play.

In my view, the officials got it right and the ESPN commentators are making a big deal out of something that they know nothing about.

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

That is all.

Gottlieb was a douchebag before that comment, but he's not the douchebag of the universe, right Jurassic?

Your Words, Not Mine ...
 

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.

True ... good point. :)

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

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

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

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.

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.

I agree.

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

http://www.343guiltysnark.com/wp-con...douchebag2.jpg

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

I'm Focusing ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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

You Said It, Not Me ...
 

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"?

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

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.

Let's Agree To Agree ...
 

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.

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.

This is a reason for a rule change?

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?

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

Wow.

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?

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. :D

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.

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.

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.

Angles ??
 

This is an easy way to describe the camera angle:

http://re3.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com/image/25/m5/3315506521

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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?

49% is legal. 51% is a violation.

50% is a do-over.

I'm 113% sure you're wrong.

Shut up.

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" ??

Geeze, another close primary.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.:rolleyes:

Geeze Camron, you just overstated your case again.

AT LEAST half of all possible camera angles will show the ball through the glass WITHOUT the ball going over the top - from the back.

Your rule of thumb does not apply to at least some of the views from the front. That number is what you're debating.

You're obviously very invested in your rule of thumb for some reason and I'm not at all invested in convincing you it's at best very misleading.

Good luck with it.

Not to mention that the camera angle from the endline doesn't have the ball blocking out any of the backboard before it goes "over".

Seems to me that a shot that goes over the backboard would need to pass the back side of the BB, at some point, to go over the back board.;)

Spirit of rule...
 

AND, why the words "...from any direction..."???

That means going over from front to back or back to front and not any shot that is taken from behind the front plain of the BB that does not directly go over the BB.

I thought it was so obvious that the ball was not behind the backboard if you see the ball through the glass from the back. The whole context of the discussion is about the ball passing over the top.

You just made my point for me. What is directly over? It is any position DIRECTLY over the backboard. How is a position 2-3" from end of the board any less above the backboard than a position 12" from the end? The DIRECTLY is refering to the position relative to the backboard, not the direction the ball is traveling.

Shipps shot, had it been just a little lower, would have bounced on the top corner and continued to the front...had it done so, would there have been any discussion? Lower still and it would have hit the back/side corner...perhaps more on the side.

It's not possible to pass over the side of the backboard. You can go around the side, but not over...geometrically impossible.

Umpire ???
 

I'm not a baseball umpire, nor do I play one on television, but isn't the foul pole actually the fair pole.

Science !!!
 

Let me explain:

http://re3.yt-thm-a04.yimg.com/image/25/m4/3055751015

Well, exactly!

Huh?!? Uhhh... I don't get it.