Can someone explain offensive goaltending to me?

Clarification, in addition to the downward flight, the ball has to have an opportunity to go in. If the shot is a foot short and it is still above rim height and a player touches the ball it is not goal tending.

[This message has been edited by Bart Tyson (edited April 11, 2000).]

If the ball is on its downward flight towards the goal neither the offense or defense can touch it. If the offense touches it then it is offensive goaltending.

An alley oop is legal when it is a pass not going towards the goal. If the ball was shot towards the hoop and an offensive player caught it and dunked it, it would be goaltending.

Got to admit that I have never seen this one http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

Three points to consider for goaltending:
1. Above the basket.
2. On the downward flight.
3. And have a chance to go in.

Bradley you are wrong about offensive goaltending. There is no such animal. Only the defensive cannot touch the ball on a shot.

If the offensive team catches a ball outside the basket but on line to the basket and then slams it, it is a good play.

If the offensive team catches the ball while it is in the cylinder, then it is offensive interference.

Hope this clarifies the rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bsilliman:


Bradley you are wrong about offensive goaltending. There is no such animal. Only the defensive cannot touch the ball on a shot. Hope this clarifies the rule.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


b - I don't know what rulebook you use, but my NF book clearly states the penalties for both offensive and defensive goaltending. In the definition of goaltending (4-22) it says "...when a player..." - not a "defensive" player, but a "player".

In the violations and penalties section (9-12) it again uses the same language and specifically outlines the penalties for both offensive and defensive goaltending.

Did anyone see the Knicks vs. Pacers game last night? Larry Johnson shot a 3-pointer from the corner with about 15 seconds left in the game. The ball was gonna go in the basket but Patrick Ewing touched it as it was going into the cylinder. The refs blew the call. The Pacers were furious. They ended up losing by 2 points.

It should have been called offensive goaltending. BSILLIMAN is correct. The 3 points should NOT have counted.

Q: Isn't it also a Technical if a player goaltends during a free throw? I've never seen it happen though.

Correction, BSILLIMAN is incorrect. There is such a thing as offensive goaldtending.

Basket Interference is when the ball is touched while it is "in or on the cylinder".

Goaltending is when the ball is outside the cylinder but has a possibility of going in.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bradley Batt:

An alley oop is legal when it is a pass not going towards the goal. If the ball was shot towards the hoop and an offensive player caught it and dunked it, it would be goaltending.

Got to admit that I have never seen this one http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brad,
Let's say an adjudged alley oop goes into the hole on a pass from outside the arc. That is then ruled a "2" ,is it not?
mick

Goaltending is goaltending, defensive or offensive. the only difference is the penalty. Defensive will get the points awarded and if it's something that happens to often the player can get a T for failing to comply with the technicality of the rules.
Offensive will just get the points rejected.

When ever the ball is on it's way to the ring, and it's clear (to the official) that it's will go in, it may not be interfered, by no one.
A good alleyoop is never thrown in the ring, but towards the ring. Still, for the flow of the game, the ref will allow it, even if it's clear it will go in, if it is intercepted for a dunk, but not above the cylinder

[This message has been edited by Rehuel (edited April 12, 2000).]

I am now confused about goaltending. Are you saying that any shot on its way down cannot be touched by the offense? I always thought that was OK as long as it was not in the cylinder. The play that comes to my mind is the NC State championship when Lorenzo Charles tipped in the shot for the win. Ball on the way down, but I think it's a good play. Yes?!?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattbray:
I am now confused about goaltending. Are you saying that any shot on its way down cannot be touched by the offense? I always thought that was OK as long as it was not in the cylinder. The play that comes to my mind is the NC State championship when Lorenzo Charles tipped in the shot for the win. Ball on the way down, but I think it's a good play. Yes?!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FIBA rules state (no 43) that the poition of the ball above the cylinder is importantif the ball is above the cylinder, no one may touch it, regardless of a pass, shot or touch after jumpball.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mick:
Brad,
Let's say an adjudged alley oop goes into the hole on a pass from outside the arc. That is then ruled a "2" ,is it not?
mick
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any ball that goes in the hole from outside the arc (except into the opponents basket) would be 3 points, regardless of how it got there. After all, who are we to judge whether someone has a very unorthodox looking shot or whether it was really a pass? (Sorry, I'm not Brad, but I couldn't resist replying).

Mark,
I am at disadvantage because I cannot look up the specific rule since I am far away from home for the summer. If what you say comes from the rulebook then I have to agree with the rule.
However, have you ever called the violation? I sure have not nor will I ever do it.

Nice to see that the board hasn't died down in the post-season!!

I've not known Todd to be wrong, yet..

However...

Todd, you have to agree that technically, a pass from outside the 3-pt arc, by definition, is not a shot and therefore is only 2 points if the pass enters the hoop.

(think about it...would you be signaling a 3pt attempt on the "pass"?)

But like a few other rare occasions, I would agree in not making the "technical" application...give 'em 3 and get on with the game.

"Don't call anything I can't explain"

Todd- I have never had it happen so I'm a little light on the rule, but, if you put the ball into the wrong hoop, it is still points for the other team. If you are dumb enough to pop a trey, you would still give the other team three points, they just aren't credited to anyone on the team in the scorebook. Am I right or confused?

Brian,

You are right that the opposing team gets the points, but since it is in the wrong basket, it is not technically considered a "shot" in the same sense as we are used to. Therefore, it would always be 2 points awarded, even if it was thrown from outside the arc. I admit, I don't have my book here to double check, but I'm pretty confident in what I said. But . . . I've been wrong once or twice before.

So after all this, I am understanding that if the shot in the NC State game was indeed a shot, then that hoop should have been illegal? There is no doubt that it was an attempted shot, NOT a pass. Is there a ref anywhere who would make that call? Has that call ever been made?? I think if the stripes called it in that game we would be fishing up their remains from the Atlantic Ocean!!

I think it wasn't called in the NC St. game because that duck really had no chance of going in. But on the filp side, what if he was on defense and smacked the ball, would the call have been different?

From the looks of the tape the other day, I think Ewing clearly touched that ball and that one should have been waived off. That miss by the refs was almost as bad as the IU/Ohio St. game earlier in the year where they counted a bucket that never happened.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pizanno:

"Don't call anything I can't explain"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that's really a good attitude to have. We here in Suriname try to always be ready to explain anything, called or uncalled. If someone has a question, they expect the ref to have the answer. And the ref SHOULD have an answer. He should know the rules better than anyone around the floor (so to speak)

I just briefly looked at the fiba rules on this one (No 29): It explains that u get 1 point for free-throws, 2 for field goals, and three for field goals from beyond the arc. Then it says thatif a team scores in own basket, the POINTS are given as if the captain scored the ball. It probably counts as three pointer!!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pizanno:
Todd, you have to agree that technically, a pass from outside the 3-pt arc, by definition, is not a shot and therefore is only 2 points if the pass enters the hoop.

(think about it...would you be signaling a 3pt attempt on the "pass"?)

But like a few other rare occasions, I would agree in not making the "technical" application...give 'em 3 and get on with the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically it might not be a shot, but since the ball was "thrown" by the OFFENSIVE player into his own basket, it is still treated the same. I wouldn't be signaling a 3-point attempt if I thought it was a pass, but if it goes through, my arms are coming up promptly. So, while not technically a shot, it would be technically correct (by rule) to award the 3 points. Either way, we agree on the end result.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker:
Technically it might not be a shot, but since the ball was "thrown" by the OFFENSIVE player into his own basket, it is still treated the same. I wouldn't be signaling a 3-point attempt if I thought it was a pass, but if it goes through, my arms are coming up promptly. So, while not technically a shot, it would be technically correct (by rule) to award the 3 points. Either way, we agree on the end result.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it is a shot, my arm goes up on the release. We have to make that decision many times through the game. (Is a player fouled while shooting or not?). If my arm is not up on the release, it is not a shot but a pass. If it then goes in, it is only 2.

I'd be interested to see if you can find rule book support for that position (my book is at home). I'd also be surprised. It is not our arm going up that determines whether it counts for three or just two. The key, I believe, is whether the offensive player himself caused the ball to go from his hands directly into the basket. If he did so from beyond the 3-point arc, it's three points. That takes the "guesswork", and potential arguments, out of some situations and the need to decide whether it was an unusual-looking shot or a pass---in other words, it doesn't matter. Think of all those last-second "shots" from the length of the court we've seen on the highlight clips: baseball type of throw, usually seen in a long pass situation, but always counted for three if it goes in. But, like I said, I've been wrong before. Just show me the rule book interpretation, and I'll be a believer.

[This message has been edited by Todd VandenAkker (edited April 18, 2000).]

Todd-

Check out NFHS 4-40-1 through 3 (definition of shooting, try) and 4-31 (definition of pass).

The difference is if we think the ball was INTENDED for the basket, or another player.

Last second situations: those are definitely shots. Why else would they be throwing it up there?


Rehuel- (it's scary that I know how to spell your name without looking now!)

That quote was tongue-in-cheek said to me by a veteran lead official. It made a lot of sense to me in how to address game control.

Imagine yourself trying to explain why this "shot" is a two and not a three. Do you really think you will give the coach a satisfactory answer to his question? "coach, rule 4-40-1 & 4-31, it was a pass not a shot". You and your partner may be the only ones in the gym who actually know the rule (and I'm not so sure your partner will know), but is it more important to get that particular rule "right", or to maintain the flow of the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pizanno:
Todd, you have to agree that technically, a pass from outside the 3-pt arc, by definition, is not a shot and therefore is only 2 points if the pass enters the hoop.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The danger in speaking "off the cuff" is that one can't check to be sure of the accuracy of one's impressions. Few people have perfect recollection, myself included among those who do not. In finally looking up the Definitions, it does appear that the official has to JUDGE that a player is trying for a goal (Rule 4-40-2, as pizzano indicated). That surprised me, in that it allows more subjectivity than I expected or would think desireable, but I can't really argue with the wording in the book. Now I have to re-think the matter some more so I'm ready in a game situation. Anyway, unless I get additional information to support my original impression, I concede. Thanks, pizanno, mick and Camron, for fine-tuning my knowledge base and keeping me sharp.

I still can't see me trying to explain this to a coach. Its to bad we know the rule. Now we can start looking at every pass/shot behind the arc with scrutiny.

I hear you, Bart. That's one I didn't want to admit being wrong on, because I liked "my way" better.

I don’t have to rules in front of me to verify, but I don’t see where anyone has quoted the rulebook as stating that a ball going into the hoop off of what we consider a pass, to be only two points, no matter where it came from. (I’m going from memory here but) In fact doesn’t the book state that <u>a ball which enters the hoop </u> from beyond 19-9 is considered three points?

I guess I’m confused. By rule, not common sense, why would we not award the three? In this situation I can see myself giving two points only if I am not completely sure the shot/pass came entirely behind the arc. Also, has anyone found a casebook example?

According to the book, "a successful try or tap from the field by a player who is located behind the 19-foot, 9-inch line counts three points. Any other goal from the field counts two points . . . " (5-2-1). Then rule 4-40-2, as pointed out by pizanno, says, "A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal." Until I read these yesterday, I felt the same way as you: of course you would award 3 points. But, based on the above rule quotes, the book seems to suggest that we officials must "judge" whether the player was actually attempting a shot (i.e., a "try") or not before awarding 3 points. Anything else apparently falls into the "any other goal" category in rule 5-2-1. I couldn't find any Case Book situation that touched on a "non-shot" going in the hoop from outside the 3-point arc. Seems odd to me, but . . . At the least, anything remotely resembling an attempt to throw the ball in the hoop from out there is getting three from me.

[This message has been edited by Todd VandenAkker (edited April 20, 2000).]

I don't want to argue with the book, but I would almost like to get an interpretation from the NF. I bet if we asked, they would say count it as three. My gut feeling is the only reason we need to determine if the action was a pass or a shot is if A1 is fouled.

NFHS Rule 4 Section 40 Aticle 2.
" A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team's own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for goal ( I interperet that as a shot )
As for an attempt at the "wrong basket" score all as two points because a try has to be at one's own basket.

I agree with Brian. If an English Prof. looks at the wording "player throwing or attempting to throw for a goal". With the word "or", can you interpret the word "throw" as not having to be an atempt for a shot?

I believe you are correct again, Todd (Obewan!)
A "try" can ONLY be made towards YOUR basket, ergo, only 2 points allowed, no threes. Also, you can not be fouled in the act of "shooting" since it is not a try. You would have to be in the bonsus to shoot on the foul in this case.

Todd: Casebook plays that comes the closest. Casebook 4.39.4B "A1's three point try is short and below the ring level when it hits the shoulder of (A) A2 or (B) B2 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket. Ruling: The three point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in (A) and (B). Casebook 5.1.1 "A pass, tap or try for field goal by A1 comes down several feet in front of the basket. The ball strikes the floor without touching any player and bounces into the basket. Are two points counted for A (A) if not complicated by expiration of time or by a foul occuring while the ball was in flight or (B) time expires while the ball is in flight or a foul occurs. Ruling: In (A) two points are scored. The tap or the try for field goal by A ends when the ball touches the floor but a field goal is sometimes scored when it is not the result of a tap or try. In the case cited, it is customary to score two points to A1. In (B) since a pass is not a try, the ball becomes dead immediately. However, a tap or try does not become dead until the tap or try ends which it does when it touches the floor. Further Rule 5 Section 1 article 1, I think, in conjunction with the previously cited Rule 5, Section 2, Article 1, says it all. "A goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from above and remains in or passes through. No goal can be scored if an untouched throw-in goes through the basket." Section 2 addresses try or tap from beyond the arc. In my opinion, and in my game, if some player throws the bal toward his/her basket from beyond the arc and it goes in from above, who am I to judge the intent (i.e. pass or try)? I'm counting three and moving on.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walter:

[b]Todd: In my opinion, and in my game, if some player throws the bal toward his/her basket from beyond the arc and it goes in from above, who am I to judge the intent (i.e.