Iguodala blocks his own dunk
 

In the USA-Argentina game yesterday, a dunk by Iguodala was disallowed because the ball hit him on the way down and went back up through the basket. In the unlikely event a play like this occurs when I'm working at the table (I'm one of the handful of posters here that keep the book; I work at a Division III school) is it likely to be verbal communication with one or more of the officials that explained what happened? Should I look for a "no basket" signal? Any other thoughts about how this is handled?

Here's a link to a site with a video of the dunk. Thanks in advance. Sorry if this was mentioned in another thread, but I haven't seen it.

Andre Iguodala Blocks His Own Dunk - From Our Editors - SBNation.com

Clarification?
 

I, and I think I speak for the vast majority here on this forum, welcome the seasoned input and inquiries from table officials like you. :)

Help me out here . . . did they determine that the shooter committed basket interference, that the ball did not pass completely through the basket, and for that reason disallowed the score? Otherwise I can't figure why they wouldn't score the two points.

Interesting that, though 9-4 (NFHS, re. "Ball Enters Basket from Below") doesn't specify that a violation occurs whether the ball is dead or live, the penalty for it mentions that "the ball is dead when the violation occurs". So my assumption that a 9-4 violation would not apply because the ball was dead after passing through the basket.

Unless FIFA, upon converting the play to metric, has a rule different than the Fed.

Am I missing something in this sitch? :confused:

Thanx for the post. Someone from the Western US should be answering your other questions shortly, if he's still around.

I can't answer your question about what the officials determined; none of the replays I saw showed a signal from an official. Soon after the dunk was disallowed, Iguodala was looking up at the scoreboard and then appeared to be asking an official if the basket had counted.

FIBA's rules are the same as NFHS/NCAA/NBA regarding when a goal is scored.

FIBA's BI rule does have the part concerning touching the ball while it's in the net but it's only illegal if the defense does it and the ball doesn't pass through the basket (if, however, it's a player who reaches through the basket from below then anyone can be called for it). Under FIBA rules the Iguadola play just goes as a missed shot because the ball came out of the wrong side of the basket.

No signal necessary - the fact that they played on, and Arg did not take the ball out of bounds to bring it in - tells you this was simply a missed basket. There's no signal for missed basket.

It Gets Interestinger and Interestinger...
 

Oh, they played on after this? Without a throwin after a made basket? Or without a BI violation called? Is that a FIFA thing?
In NFHS, either way a dead ball would result, right? Either...
A) ...the opponents are awarded a throwin after a made basket along the endline after a successful throw, which just happened to hit the shooter after passing through the basket (5-1-1),
or
B) ...the dunker commits basket interence having touched the ball while it is within the basket (4-6-1)
Am I on the right track here, Fed-wise?
And is FIFA different, whereby a "play on" is the result to this play?
Who is John Galt?

No ... this was NOT a made basket, and this was NOT basket interference. This, ugly as it was, was just a miss.

On What Basis?
 

By rule, or by the fact that they played on?
(not trying to be difficult; just trying to understand):)

The ball went completely through and cleared the net and then bounced back through the ring. Should have been a made basket.

BNR is correct...the ball did actually clear the net....and was actually a good basket.

But let's assume it didn't...in a NFHS/NCAA/NBA game, it would be basket interference for touching the ball while it was in the basket. The only way you could play on is if the ball didn't clear the net because it somehow got caught up/snagged in the net and popped back out.

I'd guess you're about 70% correct, but I slowed the thing down and frame by frame I could not clearly and positively see the ball not contacting the net at any moment before it started coming back up.

At full speed not only is this not 100% clear, but it's also not 100% clear it hit Iguodala, depending on the angle the referee had (and frankly how much experience he had).

Which is obviously what they saw (right or wrong) in full speed without replaying it.

Once the ball passes entirely through the basket (net included) it should be a successful try. IMO, the ball clearly & positively passed through the net before going back through the basket from below.

The teams did play on, which is the answer and seems obvious now that I see it in print. I should have realized that myself; I'm easily confused, as anyone who's worked at a game where I'm the scorer could tell you.

I think the strangeness of the play made me even more confused than usual. And reading some of the answers led me to delete a post I made earlier because I still wasn't sure how this would be handled. But there isn't anything to handle. Play would just continue.

I can't get the video to work, but it seems to me if the players are playing on as if it missed, I'm not stopping the game if there's any doubt. I'm likely to play on.

From the clips in the link (the repeating gifs), it appears it didn't "completely" clear the net as required thus it would be BI under NFHS and NCAA.

EDIT: I was able to view the gif frame-by-frame. Unless there is another video with a different angle, you can't tell that the ball was completely clear of the net before it hit him. It appears to me that it was probably still in contact with the net at least a little bit when it hit him and bounced back up.

Sure --- I'm just saying that the officials on the spot obviously thought differently.

Good point, NFHS and NCAA, you're stopping the game either way.

I watched the game live and they had a replay angle that showed the ball clearing the net...albeit not by much. Very understandable as to why this was passed on in real time.

True, unfortunately we cant hit the rewind button while working games.

Watching it with the wife she says, I thought you said its a basket when the ball clears the net?

I said, true.

Well the ball hit him in he USA logo & that is well below the net.

I invited her to take the HS test in Nov :D

Now I'm really confused. :confused:

So there would be a stoppage in NCAA? Just when I think things are starting to make sense too ...

I'm late to the party on this one everyone.I've never seen this happen to me in a game but I would be looking for a throw in or whistle as my cue to count the basket.

I hope this will clear it up.

1) IF the ball (in the opinion of the referee) cleared the net before contacting anything, it's a basket.
2) IF the ball (in the opinion of the referee) contacted the player before clearing the net, it's basket interference.

Given 1 and 2 - and given that play did NOT stop in the game we're talking about - the referees on the spot who had to see this in real-time, from 1 angle, must have ruled that neither 1 or 2 happened... they must have felt that the ball went into the net, and snapped back out - which in ANY code is simply - Play On.

Granted - it's pretty clear they were wrong, although you've seen some disagreement as to whether it was (1) or (2). But we have all had the advantage of replays and likely a better angle.

In a game played under NFHS/NCAA/NBA rules, the only way play is NOT going to be stopped is if the ball popped out of the basket due to catching in the net. Otherwise, if the ball is touched while in the basket, there's going to be a basket interference call, or if the ball cleared, they'd blow the whistle and clarify with everyone that the basket counts, retrieve the ball, and avoid confusion.

But in FIBA, the only way you'd stop this is if it cleared the net first. Hitting the dunker before it clears the net is not, apparently, BI.

I have no problem with anybody saying they would miss this call in real time as I'm sure I would also.

But to say that watching the replay that you don't see the ball clearing the net and then hitting AI in the chest before passing back up through the basket is bewildering.

I think I've got it. Thanks, everybody.

What a Wife You've Got There ! ! !
 

Your wife really talks like that when asking questions about a basketball game you're watching??? :confused:
Where do I sign up to get my wife lessons?! :D

Yeah, she's cool until I leave the house to go work my games.
I cant blame her though, I dont believe in the "off-season." :D

OK, I just went back and looked, frame by frame. There is one frame where it appears the ball has just contacted the player, and the top of the ball is behind net (from the POV of the camera). Depth perception is impossible to see in 2D, and it is not clear at all (especially looking at the immediately preceding frame) that the ball is not still contacting the net.

I grant you that the ball is likely beyond the point within the net where it's making enough contact to still snap the ball back up - but if we're judging BI vs Basket, the ball is not beyond the entirety of the net, and is not clearly lost contact with the net either.

Well, What I'd Do Is . . .
 

Suffice it to say, I'm not one to sit back right here and castigate the officials who gave this a no-call, me not being there in the heat of the game, in transition, officiating the defense on that play, there in front of the whole entire world watching either in the arena or on TV. Heck, I'da probably lapsed into the old "blond deer in the headlights" thing and just stood there thinking, "What the Wide World of Sports just happened?!"
However, thanks to this thread I'm more clear on the relevant rules than I was before I found it. Interesting comparison with the thread a week or so ago entitled something like, "Dunk Pops Out" or similar.
Good discussion.

Exactly, there is no way in the video linked above that anyone can conclusively say it cleared the net. There may be other videos with different angles that allow for that conclusion, but not this one.

At no time was there any complete clear line looking between the ball and the net. They were overlapping in the angle available. You simply can not conclude whether it was touching or not.

Or Was It Just Me ???
 

Did anyone else detect a slight "smirk" on the face of the official?

Greener Grass ???
 

If my former wife had done this, I may have still been married.