"Shooting" at own basket

[JeroenB]

I don't have a violation here because the ball hit the ring on every shot attempt (as far as I can judge from the video). Hence it is not a double dribble violation (at least under FIBA rules, which I guess apply to this video).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JeroenB

I don't have a violation here because the ball hit the ring on every shot attempt (as far as I can judge from the video). Hence it is not a double dribble violation (at least under FIBA rules, which I guess apply to this video).

1. I believe in fiba, it's a violation to shoot at the wrong basket in the first place.

Second, if it only hits the rim, did he really not move his pivot foot throughout all those attempts? Did all that take less than ten seconds?

[JeroenB]

Originally Posted by Adam

1. I believe in fiba, it's a violation to shoot at the wrong basket in the first place.

Second, if it only hits the rim, did he really not move his pivot foot throughout all those attempts? Did all that take less than ten seconds?

1. It's not a violation to shoot at the wrong basket in FIBA, it's only a violation to deliberately score at the wrong basket.

2. It doesn't matter if it ONLY hits the rim or also the backboard, as long as it hits the ring the player is allowed to dribble again.

3. I was only referring to double dribble violations as I thought that was what the discussion was about. He did indeed move his pivot foot on the last attempt. Also I have an eight second violation (as in eight seconds to get the ball in the frontcourt, I assume that's what you ment with ten seconds, which I think is the rule in highschool/college basketball?), but not until the other player rebounds the ball and dribbles it towards the frontcourt.

[Adam]

Re #2, are you saying if a player dribbled to the wrong basket, picked up his dribble, and threw it at the ring, and caught it, he can dribble again?

I can't get the video to play, so I'm going off of ESPN memory.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JeroenB

I don't have a violation here because the ball hit the ring on every shot attempt (as far as I can judge from the video). Hence it is not a double dribble violation (at least under FIBA rules, which I guess apply to this video).

Under FIBA rules would this be deemed not a shot attempt?

15.1.1 A shot for a field goal or a free throw is when the ball is held in a player’s hand(s) and is then thrown into the air towards the opponents' basket.

24.1.2 A dribble starts when a player, having gained control of a live ball on the playing court, throws, taps, rolls, dribbles it on the floor or deliberately throws it against the backboard and touches it again before it touches another player.

A dribble ends when the player touches the ball with both hands simultaneously or permits the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.

24.1.4 The following are not dribbles:
• Successive shots for a field goal.

From reading that, I would come to the conclusion that it would be an illegal dribble. What am I missing?

[Freddy]

I put this clip out to various members of our association as an email discussion item, challenging them to determine what the official did wrong on this play.
#1 - Most popular response: OFFICIAL DID NOT HAVE A BACKCOURT TEN SECOND COUNT.
#2 - Second most popular response: DRIBBLING VIOLATION (ala Casebook 4.15...) BY REBOUNDER FOR REPEATED CONTACT WITH OPPONENTS' BACKBOARD.
#3 - Then this response trumped them all. (And I don't think it was mentioned in this thread, was it?): VIOLATION BY NON-LANE PLAYER WHO CROSSED THE THREE-POINT ARC BEFORE THE FREE THROW MADE CONTACT WITH THE BASKET OR BACKBOARD, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED A DELAYED VIOLATION, RESULTING IN A SUBSTITUTE FREE THROW.

Turns out that original violater was the hapless rebounder.

#3 violation, if properly called, would have made officiating errors #2 and #1 irrelevant.

How could I have missed that??????????

[jeremy341a]

Anyone else think it is a violation that they make you watch the advertisement at the start of the video and then tell you the video is no longer avaliable? Seems like a flagrant tech to me.

[maven]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Anyone else think it is a violation that they make you watch the advertisement at the start of the video and then tell you the video is no longer avaliable? Seems like a flagrant tech to me.

See post #2.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by maven

See post #2.

I seen that but now it has an advertisement and then no video.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Anyone else think it is a violation that they make you watch the advertisement at the start of the video and then tell you the video is no longer available? Seems like a flagrant tech to me.

Definitely flagrant. I wanted to take another look at the free throw violation that I missed the first time. Too late. The video has now disappeared into cyberspace.

[JeroenB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Definitely flagrant. I wanted to take another look at the free throw violation that I missed the first time. Too late. The video has now disappeared into cyberspace.

Here it is:

Belgian Basketball Player Can't Make a Lay Up On His Own Goal - YouTube

[JeroenB]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I put this clip out to various members of our association as an email discussion item, challenging them to determine what the official did wrong on this play.
#1 - Most popular response: OFFICIAL DID NOT HAVE A BACKCOURT TEN SECOND COUNT.
#2 - Second most popular response: DRIBBLING VIOLATION (ala Casebook 4.15...) BY REBOUNDER FOR REPEATED CONTACT WITH OPPONENTS' BACKBOARD.
#3 - Then this response trumped them all. (And I don't think it was mentioned in this thread, was it?): VIOLATION BY NON-LANE PLAYER WHO CROSSED THE THREE-POINT ARC BEFORE THE FREE THROW MADE CONTACT WITH THE BASKET OR BACKBOARD, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED A DELAYED VIOLATION, RESULTING IN A SUBSTITUTE FREE THROW.

Turns out that original violater was the hapless rebounder.

#3 violation, if properly called, would have made officiating errors #2 and #1 irrelevant.

How could I have missed that??????????

#1 Yes, actually an eight second backcourt count since it's FIBA basketball.

#2 No, not in my opinion, see my previous post(s).

#3 Absolutely right, very well spotted.

PS: calm down on the caps

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by JeroenB

PS: calm down on the caps

OOPS . . . SORRY 'BOUT THAT

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JeroenB

#1 Yes, actually an eight second backcourt count since it's FIBA basketball.

#2 No, not in my opinion, see my previous post(s).

#3 Absolutely right, very well spotted.

PS: calm down on the caps

Re your second point, I disagree. After watching the video now, I'm convinced every attempt hits the backboard. So, I have an illegal dribble after he catches his second "rebound."

Before that, however, I have a traveling violation as soon as he catches the first rebound. He gets the original rebound airborne, lands, jumps again, and "shoots." Once he catches that ball again (whether or not it hits the backboard), it's a travel.

Of course, before that was the delayed FT violation.

[Sharpshooternes]

T-Mac Alley Oop to himself All Star 2004 - YouTube, Sorry I don't know how to imbed. And hit the skip ad button.

Added by APG: