UK GA - Goaltended FT
 

I just noticed - Billy Gillispie told him to do it.

Free Throw Definition Of Goaltending ???
 

Rookie NFHS officials: Take note. Although it isn't directly relevant to this situation, please remember that during a free throw, the ball doesn't have to be on its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, with the possibility of entering the basket, for goaltending to occur. During a free throw, the ball simply has to be touched by an opponent of the free thrower while it's outside the cylinder; count the one point, technical foul.

4-22-1: Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while it is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, or an opponent of the free thrower touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

NCAA Rule: ???

Not trying to hijack the thread, but did anyone see the play before this happened where KY was running the endline, KY player sets a screen on the guy defending the ball, good amount of contact but no foul? I didn't think it was a foul b/c I think he flopped in a designed play and there was no way the refs were calling THAT foul in THAT situation. My fellow UK fans disagreed with me :)

It's being discussed on another thread. http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=42736
Maybe someone will come up with video of it.

Why was this a technical foul and not just goaltending?

There is a specific rule that GT a FT is a TF.

It's both by rule.

Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT, 'cause if it leaks to the VC, he could end up an MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP.

NCAA and/or NF Let me understand this. A free throw hits the rim and bounces straight up. The players battle for the rebound and the ball hits the rim again when opponent of the free thrower hits the ball as it is above the cylinder. This is GT and a technical??? Doesn't sound right, but i am just learning.

LOL :D

Mike, that would NOT be goaltending. To understand this, you have to understand the difference between goaltanding and basket interference.

In order to have GT, there must be a try for goal. For BI, it doesn't matter how the ball gets on the rim or in the cylinder. Could be a pass or a deflection. But for GT, it must be a try.

Goaltending:

1. Must be a try.
2. Must be on the way down.
3. Must be completely outside the cylinder.
4. Must be completely above the rim.
5. Must have a chance to go in.

Basket Interference:

1. Can't touch the ball if it's in the cylinder.
2. Can't touch the basket or ball if it's on or in the basket.
3. Can't touch the ball (even outside the cylinder) after reaching through the basket.
4. If rim is moved, it can't contact the ball before returning to its original position.

So in your situation, it would not be GT, because it is not outside the cylinder. It's basket interference, because of #1 -- touching a live ball in the imaginary cylinder.

By rule, GT a free throw in a technical foul; but committing basket interference during a free throw is NOT a technical foul.

Why?

Because it's possible to commit basket interference during a free throw, while making a legitimate basketball play. Just like in the situation you describe. But it's not possible to commit goaltending during a free throw, except by doing it on purpose (and in HS, by committing a lane violation first), which is considered unsportsmanlike.

Hope that helps.

#2--except on a free throw. It's also goaltending if a defender touches it on the way up during a free throw. It's goaltending if it's touched at any time outside the cylinder.

Scrappy knew that. Others might not.

Absolutely correct!!! Thank you for mentioning that. I cut-and-pasted that list from another thread and forgot to add the FT provision. Duh, since we're talking about goaltending a free throw. The lesson as always, I'm an idiot.

Now you've done it. You've agreed with GSDOTU.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to stock up on bottled water and canned food in preparation for the coming apocolypse.

The funny thing is if the player for Kentucky waited a split second longer for the ball to be above the cylinder then Gillispie's plan would have worked.

Or probably the best way for this play to work in the future for teams is to go stand under the basket and hold the net. This would be basket interference the instant that the ball hits the ring or enters the cylinder. And you don't have to worry about timing the block above the cylinder. If coaches are planing on doing this they should inform one of the officials of their plan so that they can confirm the penalty. In some games you might not have officials that know this rule. :(

I'm thinking that the first player might have been purposely entering the lane so that if the free throw is missed or the other player doesn't goal tend it then the UGA player would have to shot again. The same situation that happened a couple of weeks ago.

Maybe this will teach coaches to read the rule book before trying any crazy plays.:rolleyes:

Also did anyone notice that in the you tube video someone on the UGA bench starts forming the T sign with his hands before the officials call a technical. One of the announcers even says "That's a technical" before the officials signal a technical foul. I don't know if they were tipped off by something the officials did or if they knew the rule. (Probably the former :p)

What about the situation that happened during the VT/UNC game. Spot throw-in on the sideline. Inbounder throws a lob that is caught & dunked. Looking at the replay, it looks as though the ball is in the cylinder when the player touches it & dunks. Is this legal or is this basket interference? I think it is legal as there is no shot attempt by the inbounder. Thoughts...?

It needn't be a try to be BI. If the "alley-oop" is first touched in the cylinder, it's BI, even on a throw-in. The benefit of the doubt, though, goes to the offense on this play, so it won't be called unless it's obvious.

Since the ball isn't live until it is touched...it would become live when the player first touched the ball...right? So, wouldn't that just equate to a dunk?

I would think a live ball vs. dead ball situation would cause this to be different than say a ball that was in play.

Bob, don't get me wrong...I'm not saying I don't agree with you...I'm just looking for a little more clarification in case this happens in one of my games.

The ball is live when the thrower is handed the ball by the ref. By the time the dunker touches the ball, its been live for at least 1-2 seconds (depending on how long the thrower was holding the ball).

Its the second play in this video. Tough to tell from this video, but Raycom sports showed the overhead angle & it looked like it was in the cylinder.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PIplP350ayk

Is there a difference in this between high school & college rules?

No difference. Otherwise you couldn't have a personal foul during a throwin.

As Bob noted, it's not normally called on the offense unless it's blatantly obvious. If you need an overhead cam to catch it, it's not likely to get called since no official in the world has that angle.

Gotcha. Thanks guys for all of your posts. I'm just trying to move up the officiating ladder, so anything I can learn....I'm all for.

By the way, I'm going to my first D3 camp this summer. ACC, Colonial, Big East, A-10, etc... officials will be there evaluating. Any advice from the veterans?

I'd start another thread for this topic, rather than try to run two topics in the same thread.

('Cuz that never happens. . . :rolleyes: )

Here's some advice: RTFM, especially before you repeat a question that's been answered or "seek additional clarification."

nm....every thing clear...my bad.

Thanks Snaqwells & Bob.

I think he may be referring to your question regarding dead ball and live ball. It's a pretty basic rule concept; one of the first things officials should learn. Something that should have been learned long before attempting to get hired by a college assigner.

I'm not Bob, but have been known to channel my inner Dan now and then.

As one who just finished his rookie officiating year, I loved this particular breakdown. Very descriptive and helpful. Would it be accurate to say that goaltending is "deliberate" and basket interferrence is "accidental"?

Not really. Think through the implications. More specifically, think of situations where these two statements would not be accurate. There are plenty.

I would not say that. For example, basket interference can definitely be intentional. This sometimes happens when a big guy tries to dunk a missed shot. He goes up, while the ball is still in the cylinder, and jams it into the basket. This is BI, because he touched the ball while it was in the cylinder; and it's also clearly an intentional act.

I suppose it's also possible to accidentally touch a try on its downward flight, but that would be tough.

The main point I was trying to make for this discussion of the free throw, is that during a free throw, you can commit goaltending ONLY on purpose -- either by blocking it on the way up, or intentionally swatting it away before it gets to the basket.

Thanks. I'll have a refresher tonight with my good friend, the NFHS rulebook. The post wasn't originally mine, but it cerainly helped ME alot!

Sounds like you are going to the D3 super camp in VA? if so, there are some very good officials teaching at that camp. Good luck.

Another Myth Bites The Dust ...
 

A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. These are examples of basket interference. It is legal to touch the ring or the net if the ball is above the ring and not touching the ring, even if the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is legal to hang on the ring if a player is avoiding an injury to himself or herself or another player.

The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending is contacting the ball on its downward flight, above the level of the rim, with a chance to go in. On most layups, the ball is going up after it contacts the backboard. It is legal to pin the ball against the backboard if it still on the way up and not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference nor is it goaltending and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard so forcefully that it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, may be assessed a technical foul. When a player simply attempts to block a shot and accidentally slaps the backboard it is neither a violation nor is it a technical foul.

Basket Interference ???
 

Because basket interference doesn't have to involve a try, you can get some weird basket interference calls; on a throwin, as was previously mentioned, on a ball that hits a player on the shoulder, or on the head, and ends up in the cylinder, or on the ring; on a long pass that hits the floor, and bounces high enough to end up in the cylinder, or on the ring; or on a shot by a player at the wrong basket, not a legal try, but basket interference can be called.

So if Wrong Way Corrigan (aka A1) takes a shot at B's basket...

Then A2 (his more well-oriented teammate) swats the shot away while it's on it's downward arc, still above the rim, with a chance to go in...is it goaltending? Are there points awarded? If so, to whom?

or

While A1's shot rolls around the rim, A2 jumps and knocks it off the rim, is it BI? If so, is it offensive or defensive BI? Are there points awarded? If so, to whom?

no and no


yes...defensive BI 2 points for B