|
|||
I've posted this several times now in different threads, so it's all just cut-and-pasted. But if it helps, here it is again:
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. |
|
|||
I understand your point, however
Quote:
So lets move on to your next argument that the committee doesn't want to restrict freedom of movement. Is this an assertion based on your interpretation or have you seen this in writing? I'm not accusing you of anything, just wanted to know where this is coming from. Regardless of its source, let's look at this argument. What you are saying is that the committee is allowing the defense to interfere with the offenses chance to score when attempting to block a shot by hitting the backboard but a similar attempt that might hit the rim or net is penalized. Also, if it is rare (as you suggest and I agree) that the ball will be on the rim, then the defender shouldn't be worried about hitting the backboard when attempting to block the shot. Since this scenario is rare, there is no restriction (or virtually none) on the defenders movement. If on the rare occasion that it is on the rim, this should be considered BI. Bottom line: You can't argue that there is restriction of movement if this scenario is rare. We are also just looking at the attempt to block a shot. Another scenario is hitting the backboard in frustration. If this should occur while the ball is on the rim, by rule we don't have BI. Logically we do, but not by rule. We just have a technical foul. I don't believe this is enough of a penalty. The basket should count.
__________________
Gwinnett Umpires Association Multicounty Softball Association Multicounty Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
I just don't see the committee making what would be widely perceived as a rule change simply because occasionally somebody loses a basket over this. Perhaps if it became an issue in a high profile game somewhere you might get some interest. Other than that, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming |
|
||||
Quote:
1. Add the backboard to the current BI rule. 2. Make hitting the backboard BI anytime a try is in flight. 3. Make it BI if done while the try is in flight and the rim shakes enough to alter the shot. 4. Another one? I'm not quite ready to bow to your common sense yet.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
I think we should take the BI rule the other direction and eliminate at least one thing that is currently BI.
Why should a basket be awarded or canceled because a player merely touches the net while the ball is on the ring? BI for grabbing the net and causing the ring to move, I'm on board with that. BI for getting a hand caught in the net and causing the ring to move, I'm good with that too. But merely batting the strings? I don't think so. I would dare say this part of the rule is so universally disagreed with that it is almost never called. I have never called BI for this. I have never seen any other official call BI for this, at any level. As I understand it, FIBA gets along quite nicely without a BI rule at all.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming Last edited by Back In The Saddle; Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 05:31pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
Supposedly, because it may alter the ball while on the rim (though I have no idea how hitting the net could alter the ball, but tha's another discussion). If that is the case, then hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim is more likely to, or at least as likely to, alter the ball as hitting the rim or net, so why is the backboard not included in the rule? Common sense to me, and at least to rwest. |
|
||||
I've offered my theory on why. I've also yet to see a player actually hit the backboard while the ball is in the cylinder; nor have I heard or read anyone who has seen it. Everytime I've seen this slap, it happened as the ball was on the way. So adding the backboard to the current BI rule would do nothing.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
||||
Quote:
Okay, that aside. There are a couple of things you never see but are in the rules. Hitting the ball with a fist, 10 seconds on a free throw, players using tobacco. Back to the rim. The possibility of actually impacting the shot by hitting the rim is exponentially higher than if the backboard is hit. Common sense tells me that.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Goal tending or nothing ? | mick | Basketball | 1 | Sun May 24, 2009 08:52am |
Goal Tending | scotties7125 | Basketball | 19 | Sun Jan 27, 2008 03:34pm |
goal tending | ohad_d | Basketball | 0 | Sat Jan 04, 2003 04:19pm |
goal tending | John Schaefferkoetter | Basketball | 4 | Thu Dec 19, 2002 11:45am |