Wow....how far off base could the announcers be? They had absolutely no clue.

First attempt at this, so be gentle.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AiFYetdU11o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I am not sure how to embed it to make it start at the right spot, but fast-forward to the 1:24 mark to see the play I am referring to.

When I first saw replay this morning I thought the tip on this play happened as ball was on its way to basket, but now I see that it was when ball was coming off of rim. Thus, I think it is correct since ball was out of cylinder. I have both calls (no call and call) as correct.

I don't know, that appeared to be on the cylinder.

There's also a tip by the bulls at about 1:45 - 1:50 on the tape that's very similar to the nuggets' tip.

One would have been BI and the other would have been GT. I think the first play was BI, but a very close call.

Peace

I think it's about as close as it can be, and would not have a problem either way. Although the plays are different in rules references, the point is that from a players/coach perspective, they see them as the same types of plays deserving similar results and so I can see why the reaction on Noah's.

Agreed.

Peace

Players do not know rules. There reaction is irrelevant. Players think GT is when the play is BI. If that is the case then why to players and coaches react when someone slaps the backboard? Now the NBA rule is different, but HS and college players think that is GT.

Peace

I'd like to see the NBA have a rules clinic and/or test for all announcers. These guys have no idea what a disservice they're doing to the game when they're passing on bad information, and I think they'd be surprised what they've been getting wrong.

I'd actually like to see such announcer clinics for NCAA broadcasters, too, but that would be more difficult to enforce. You would think the NBA could take a little more control of that.

You might want to look at that again. It wasn't even close. The ball is well within the cylinder. That was BI any way you look at it.

It may have been on its way out, but a good portion of the ball was definitely over the basket. The rebounder/shooter has to wait until it clears the rim completely.

That is merely a confusion in terminology...mixing two terms that are both used in essentially the same context. That is not a big deal. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they merged the two into one.

Here's some more info on both plays being discussed - link

Ok, using the relevant rules, what makes this particularly confusing is that replay can be used if a violation was called. In this case, while the NBA says that Noah was called for a violation, and thus, the play was reviewable. However, there sure wasn't much indication that a violation was called, which probably lead to the confusion as to why one was reviewed and the other was not.

That writer suggests switching to FIBA rules regarding GT/BI. Unfortunately, he apparently doesn't understand those either. Even under FIBA rules, Noah's actions would still be GT since it had not yet hit the rim. FIBA rules would have made the tip-in by Koufos legal since it had already contacted the rim.

So, in effect, it was called by FIBA rules.

Either way these are two different terminologies and if you cannot distinguish it shows a lack of knowledge of what you would be complaining about. Words that have different definitions matter and this is not unique to rules or sports.We could be talking about the law or academia and come to the same conclusion when people do not know the difference in basic definitions. It is not about what bothers you or me, it is just clear that these two situations still have different applications because they were different acts.

Peace