A play for 2-3?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'd have had my players (if I was a coach) shoot into the defender's hand.

In that case, the FT would end when it was clearly unsuccessful...heading towards a player and not the rim....and it would be a FT violation on the shooter for having the FT end before it hit the rim.

[tjones1]

Interesting.

I think I am going with a technical and no goaltending. Clear the lane and let A1 shoot two free throws then shoot the technical foul. Throw-in for Team A at the division line.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Interesting.

I think I am going with a technical and no goaltending. Clear the lane and let A1 shoot two free throws then shoot the technical foul. Throw-in for Team A at the division line.

Agreed...I'm just not sure the GT violation fits here. Don't like the disconcertion idea either. Pretty sure it's a plain old unsportsmanlike T - similiar to reaching across and hitting the ball on a throw-in.

Bugs me that Snaqs came up with something that made me have to stop and think!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In that case, the FT would end when it was clearly unsuccessful...heading towards a player and not the rim....and it would be a FT violation on the shooter for having the FT end before it hit the rim.

Sorry, I was assuming the defender's hand was extended between the shooter's hand and the rim. Even if the shooter shot it underhanded, it the freethrow wouldn't end until the defender touched it, creating a goal tending situation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Agreed...I'm just not sure the GT violation fits here. Don't like the disconcertion idea either. Pretty sure it's a plain old unsportsmanlike T - similiar to reaching across and hitting the ball on a throw-in.

Bugs me that Snaqs came up with something that made me have to stop and think!

You know what they say about a stopped clock? Well, that doesn't apply here, so never mind.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

you know what they say about a stopped clock? Well, that doesn't apply here, so never mind.

roflmao!!

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

technical and goal tending!

If you call goal tending on this, I think you can pretty much count on giving more than just one T. You may end up with a couple of ejections as well.

Enforcing goal tending is not at all what the rules want here. Can you imagine trying to explain this to your assigner or during the next pool meeting? You know you’re going to have to because the coach is going to be on phone with them.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Vinski

If you call goal tending on this, I think you can pretty much count on giving more than just one T. You may end up with a couple of ejections as well.

Enforcing goal tending is not at all what the rules want here. Can you imagine trying to explain this to your assigner or during the next pool meeting? You know you’re going to have to because the coach is going to be on phone with them.

I honestly think the situation falls so far outside the norm, that you could get away with this. The goal tending on this really only costs 1 point, maybe, since at the very least you're going to give the player another shot.

I'd be more than happy to talk to the coach about it, and if he's going to go ballistic about this play, he deserves a seat in the locker room. He had better be chewing B3 a new hole if he's raising his voice.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Vinski

If you call goal tending on this, I think you can pretty much count on giving more than just one T. You may end up with a couple of ejections as well.

Enforcing goal tending is not at all what the rules want here. Can you imagine trying to explain this to your assigner or during the next pool meeting? You know you’re going to have to because the coach is going to be on phone with them.

I say to my assigner or the coach "Rule 10.22 says that goaltending can occur on the free throw and rule 10.20.2 says the free throw starts when it is at the disposal of the free throw shooter"

I don't think it would be that difficult. It's one point. The kid took away his right to attempt the free throw by slapping the ball away prior to him having an "fair" opportunity to score the basket.

Again like I said earlier I have no problem just letting the kid re-shoot and then the tech, but why would the definition of goaltending (4.22) state that it can occur on a free throw?

At what point to you call it a Goaltending on the free throw? Once the shot is on it's downward flight outside the cylinder? Once it hits the cylinder it would be Basket Interference and no un-sporting act occurs. Agreed?

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I honestly think the situation falls so far outside the norm, that you could get away with this. The goal tending on this really only costs 1 point, maybe, since at the very least you're going to give the player another shot.

I'd be more than happy to talk to the coach about it, and if he's going to go ballistic about this play, he deserves a seat in the locker room. He had better be chewing B3 a new hole if he's raising his voice.

The goaltending definition (4-22) states:
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.

Swatting the ball away while the shooter is bouncing the ball a couple of times before the shot is not during the attempt. I am hard pressed to see a goaltend call on this.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I say to my assigner or the coach "Rule 10.22 says that goaltending can occur on the free throw and rule 10.20.2 says the free throw starts when it is at the disposal of the free throw shooter"

I’m not arguing this point. The rules clearly state that goaltending can occur during a free-throw.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I don't think it would be that difficult. It's one point. The kid took away his right to attempt the free throw by slapping the ball away prior to him having an "fair" opportunity to score the basket.

Agreed. And I believe that this would be an usporting T.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Again like I said earlier I have no problem just letting the kid re-shoot and then the tech, but why would the definition of goaltending (4.22) state that it can occur on a free throw?

It says free throw attempt. I believe the intent of the word “attempt” in this situation means the actual act of attempting the free throw shot. That’s how I see it anyway.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

At what point to you call it a Goaltending on the free throw? Once the shot is on it's downward flight outside the cylinder? Once it hits the cylinder it would be Basket Interference and no un-sporting act occurs. Agreed?

During the actual attempt of the shot. This of course can mean during the upward flight of the ball as well as downward.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Vinski

The goaltending definition (4-22) states:
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.

Swatting the ball away while the shooter is bouncing the ball a couple of times before the shot is not during the attempt. I am hard pressed to see a goaltend call on this.

Let me rephrase, since I'm not in the GT camp on this one. I agree with you that "during the attempt" is not while dribbling. I wouldn't call GT.

That said, I wouldn't even consider trying to talk my partner out of it if he or she made that call. In that case, I'd be more than happy to explain to the coach the reasoning behind it, with full support for my partner.

[Back In The Saddle]

Clark Kent, you may be new here, but you show some serious potential to be a world class evil genius!

My understanding of the spirit and intent of the goaltending rule is that is intended to be just like the regular goaltending rule, but also to penalize swatting away a free throw on it's way up too.

I'm going with the T on this for unsporting conduct. The act is certainly unsporting, and the penalty is in line with that for reaching through the boundary and touching the ball during a throw-in.

I wouldn't choke on my own vomit if my partner called the kid for disconcerting, but that would not be the call I'd make.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Vinski

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. Swatting the ball away while the shooter is bouncing the ball a couple of times before the shot is not during the attempt. I am hard pressed to see a goaltend call on this.

I like my red words better. No goaltending.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me rephrase, since I'm not in the GT camp on this one. I agree with you that "during the attempt" is not while dribbling. I wouldn't call GT.

That said, I wouldn't even consider trying to talk my partner out of it if he or she made that call. In that case, I'd be more than happy to explain to the coach the reasoning behind it, with full support for my partner.

My tent is pitched right next to yours in this camp, but I felt the need to yank your chain about the nuances of the rules anyway.

There cannot be any dribbling during a FT according to Rules Fundamental #5. You should have written "while bouncing the ball."