"Shooting" at own basket

[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:

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

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

Count the basket. Consider the first release to be a try, despite any obvious evidence to the contrary.

[APG]

The ruling in your play is you might just end up on your local new's top 10 plays...but hopefully not as that one official that incorrectly waved a play off.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Count the basket. Consider the first release to be a try, despite any obvious evidence to the contrary.

You don't need to consider his first release to be a try. It's legal to throw the ball off your own backboard and retrieve it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You don't need to consider his first release to be a try. It's legal to throw the ball off your own backboard and retrieve it.

It's also legal if you consider it a try.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by 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.

specifically allowed in both NFHS and NCAA rules / cases.