Goaltending & basket interference

[chseagle]

In your mindset, which level has the best rules concerning goaltending & basket interference?

What are your thoughts of David Stern changing NBE's definitions?

David Stern wants to make the NBA worse than it currently is - Ball Don't Lie - NBABlog - Yahoo! Sports

[APG]

They already experimented with it in the NBA Developmental League this year...quite frankly, I don't see it being employed by the NBA.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

quite frankly, I don't see being employed by the NBA.

Quite frankly, I don't see you being employed by the NBA either. Oh wait - did you mean "I don't see it being employed by the NBA"?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The NFHS, NCAA, and NBA/WNBA Basket Interference and Goaltending rules are basically the same, and they are very different from the FIBA rules. That said I am not a fan of the FIBA rules for BI and GT.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The NFHS, NCAA, and NBA/WNBA Basket Interference and Goaltending rules are basically the same, and they are very different from the FIBA rules. That said I am not a fan of the FIBA rules for BI and GT.

MTD, Sr.

True...the only difference I can think of is basket interference can be called on a throw-in in NFHS (and I'm assuming NCAA), while goaltending/BI can't be called in this situation in the NBA.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

True...the only difference I can think of is basket interference can be called on a throw-in in NFHS (and I'm assuming NCAA), while goaltending/BI can't be called in this situation in the NBA.

The referenced article spent the entire time complaining about the defense knocking away shots that were rolling around the rim with the conclusion that it would reduce shooting percentages without even mentioning the fact that the offence could also contact the ball and "finish" the shot. Seems to me that the overall effect would be neutral while being far easier to call.

[APG]

I guess my issue is I don't really see why the rule needs to be changed...I haven't noticed an issue calling this play. I feel this proposed rule change is coming as a result of a couple BI/goaltending calls that were close/missed...and if they want those correct, they can just add it as another instant replay trigger when the officials aren't sure and review the play at the next mandatory time out like they do for 2 vs. 3, shot clock violation vs not...or review the play before the free throws are shot.

[CLH]

The rule change really doesn't make this play easier to officiate, there are more factors involved than just saying once the ball hits the rim its free to play.

If the ball is tapped in, the officials have to know whether the ball was above or within the ring as this will affect how many points are awarded. Additionally, on a final free throw, the TIMER must know whether the ball is above or within the ring as the clock would not start if the ball is within the basket, but would start above the basket. There is also a very big potential of having a game "stolen" with a free throw near the end of the game by tapping in a 1pt free throw above the ring and it being scored a 2pt and winning by 1pt as nearly happened in the D-Leage Western Conf Finals last week.

There are way more parts to refereeing these plays than just saying "ok, boys it hit the ring, go get it."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CLH

The rule change really doesn't make this play easier to officiate, there are more factors involved than just saying once the ball hits the rim its free to play.

If the ball is tapped in, the officials have to know whether the ball was above or within the ring as this will affect how many points are awarded. Additionally, on a final free throw, the TIMER must know whether the ball is above or within the ring as the clock would not start if the ball is within the basket, but would start above the basket. There is also a very big potential of having a game "stolen" with a free throw near the end of the game by tapping in a 1pt free throw above the ring and it being scored a 2pt and winning by 1pt as nearly happened in the D-Leage Western Conf Finals last week.

There are way more parts to refereeing these plays than just saying "ok, boys it hit the ring, go get it."

It is sure a lot easier to tell, from floor level, if the ball is a little above the ring or not vs. a little to the side or not.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by CLH

If the ball is tapped in, the officials have to know whether the ball was above or within the ring as this will affect how many points are awarded.

But don't the officials already need to know whether the ball is in the cylinder in that type of play? Under the current rule, no points at all can be scored if the ball is touched in the cylinder. It sounds like, under a FIBAesque rule, you still need to know if the ball is in the cylinder, just for a different reason. No real additional hardship there.

Additionally, on a final free throw, the TIMER must know whether the ball is above or within the ring as the clock would not start if the ball is within the basket, but would start above the basket.

Eh, not really. Just one more clock management issue for the officials to watch. Just like noticing if the shot clock is reset or not when a try barely hits or misses the rim.

There is also a very big potential of having a game "stolen" with a free throw near the end of the game by tapping in a 1pt free throw above the ring and it being scored a 2pt and winning by 1pt as nearly happened in the D-Leage Western Conf Finals last week.

You mean stealing a game, like when Kendrick Perkins is credited with 2 points after touching a ball when it is clearly in the cylinder in the final 30 seconds of a playoff game?

There are way more parts to refereeing these plays than just saying "ok, boys it hit the ring, go get it."

That may be true. But it seems to me that they will happen infrequently enough so that it is -- on the whole -- easier for officials to deal with plays on and around the rim.