on the ground shot

[mutantducky]

playing a little causal pick up yesterday. One of the players fell and then threw up a shot not even facing the basket. missed of course. Would goaltending rules still be in effect here? say if the shot had a chance going in? If facing the basket I assume so but he wasn't even looking and on the ground. I guess GT in both...............

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

playing a little causal pick up yesterday. One of the players fell and then threw up a shot not even facing the basket. missed of course. Would goaltending rules still be in effect here? say if the shot had a chance going in? If facing the basket I assume so but he wasn't even looking and on the ground. I guess GT in both...............

There's your answer. I don't remember reading anything in the rules about having to face the basket, not be on the ground, etc.

If you determine it's a try, the ball is on it's downward flight, above the level of the ring, and still has a chance of going in, there can be goaltending.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

playing a little causal pick up yesterday. One of the players fell and then threw up a shot not even facing the basket. missed of course. Would goaltending rules still be in effect here? say if the shot had a chance going in? If facing the basket I assume so but he wasn't even looking and on the ground. I guess GT in both...............

Normally, all of the usual goaltending rules would apply, but in this specific situation it seems that the player traveled before releasing the try.

[Pantherdreams]

Would you have called a shooting foul if he was whacked during the attempt. IF so then he was shooting and it could be goal tended.

[BillyMac]

Rookies: Remember. These guys are discussing goaltending, which must involve a try. Basket interference does not have to involve a try. So if a pass hits a player on the head, and the ball ends up in the cylinder, or on the ring, and is interfered with, then it's a violation. Same thing on a throwin that ends up in the cylinder, or on the ring. Or a long, very high pass, that bounces off the floor and ends up in the cylinder, or on the ring.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

playing a little causal pick up yesterday. One of the players fell and then threw up a shot not even facing the basket. missed of course. Would goaltending rules still be in effect here? say if the shot had a chance going in? If facing the basket I assume so but he wasn't even looking and on the ground. I guess GT in both...............

Everybody is over thinking this play. The player who had control of the ball fell to the court, and therefore committed a traveling violation.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Normally, all of the usual goaltending rules would apply, but in this specific situation it seems that the player traveled before releasing the try.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everybody is over thinking this play. The player who had control of the ball fell to the court, and therefore committed a traveling violation.

MTD, Sr.

Oh really?

I don't recall seeing anything in the OP about whether the player was holding the ball when he fell, was dribbling the ball when he fell, or secured control of the ball after he fell. And only one of those makes it traveling.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everybody is over thinking this play. The player who had control of the ball fell to the court, and therefore committed a traveling violation.

MTD, Sr.

Not "everybody" discounted that possibility.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Normally, all of the usual goaltending rules would apply, but in this specific situation it seems that the player traveled before releasing the try.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Oh really?

I don't recall seeing anything in the OP about whether the player was holding the ball when he fell, was dribbling the ball when he fell, or secured control of the ball after he fell. And only one of those makes it traveling.

Do you see something which states that the player was definitely NOT holding the ball when he fell?

The play is from a playground pick-up game and the poster didn't provide the minutest of details, so we have to make some inferences.
Hence the "it seems" in my response.

[Pantherdreams]

Well if they were playing a pick up game under international rules (rather than high school or ncca) then FIBA allows the player with the ball to fall and or slide with the ball in their possession so long as they don't roll.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Do you see something which states that the player was definitely NOT holding the ball when he fell?

If you are officiating such a play and see a player fall (without knowing if they're holding the ball or not) and subsequently see that player with the ball, do you assume they must have been holding the ball when they fell or do you withhold making a call since you don't know.

[bainsey]

Rather than making assumptions, perhaps we should seek clarity by simply asking this question...

Mutantducky: Was the player holding the ball or doing something else when falling to the floor?

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Rather than making assumptions, perhaps we should seek clarity by simply asking this question...

Mutantducky: Was the player holding the ball or doing something else when falling to the floor?

Where's the fun in that?

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

playing a little causal pick up yesterday. One of the players fell and then threw up a shot not even facing the basket. missed of course. Would goaltending rules still be in effect here? say if the shot had a chance going in? If facing the basket I assume so but he wasn't even looking and on the ground. I guess GT in both...............

Regardless, if fouled, the official could say "on the floor" and still give two shots and no one should complain. (Probably no issue of an airborne shooter either.)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The OP said and I qoute: "One of the players fell and then threw up a shot..."

The OP post did NOT say the one of the players, who did not have control of the ball, fell to the floor and then gained control of the ball and then threw the ball up at the basket.

It would be logical to assume from the wording of the OP that the player that fell to the floor had control of the ball prior to falling to the floor and maintained control of the ball during the entire play.

MTD, Sr.


P.S.: My apologies to NevadaRef.

P.P.S.: Camron, I think that you and I have taken or read enough NFHS exams that we are to take the question at face value which would lead to my assumption that the player had control of the ball prior to falling to the court and maintained control during the entire play. That's my story and I am sticking with it, , until MutantDucky clarifies the play.

P.P.P.S. Grunewar, did you get my check yet.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It would be logical to assume from the wording of the OP that the player that fell to the floor had control of the ball prior to falling to the floor and maintained control of the ball during the entire play.


P.P.S.: Camron, I think that you and I have taken or read enough NFHS exams that we are to take the question at face value which would lead to my assumption that the player had control of the ball prior to falling to the court and maintained control during the entire play. That's my story and I am sticking with it, , until MutantDucky clarifies the play.

Even if the player did have control when falling, that control may well have been in the form of a dribble.