BI on Joakim Noah (video)
 

What ya got.....?

Tom Thibodeau explodes after critical call goes against Bulls (VIDEO)

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKg7O9fmQYo?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Correct call of goaltending made by the crew in real time and confirmed by replay

One announcer so badly wants it to be the wrong call:)

I thought GT on the original angle. It's not as though the ball was going to change direction without any help.

If Noah had any guts, he would've told his coach he touched it so the guy wouldn't have nearly burst a blood vessel when the crew made its ruling.

What's the rule that came into play here? Looked to me like the ball was halfway in the cylinder, if that makes sense.

NBA:

No player may not touch the ball anytime a ball, from the playing area, is on its downward flight with a chance a score.

Ah, gotcha.

Seems pretty black and white to me.

Everyone knew Noah touched the ball, everybody not knowing the rule is what caused the announcers and Thibodeaux to sound/look like fools.

Bulls fans need to ask themselves, would they have wanted goaltending if a defender had gone up and swatted that ball away? If so, then the offensive guy can't go up and do the same thing, right? That ball looked a bit short, but it still had a chance.

And it's a violation in NFHs rule set also. Makes no distinction as to whether it's an offensive or defensive player:

Rule: 4-22


Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while it is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, or an opponent of the free thrower touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

Obviously goaltending, but was Thibodeau more upset over the no call a couple plays earlier when Denver did a similar act?

Blatant goaltending, and idiotic commentary --- even by commentary's normal standards of idiocy.

They were too caught up in the offensive basket interference portion of the play (which is a valid consideration on this play)...and didn't realize...or probably don't know that the same goaltending restrictions that apply to the defense apply to the offense. Not sure if most commentators know it either.

Video please. :D

My thought process...
 

... downward flight... chance to go in. Pretty simple.

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

From the second clip:

The first play is close...under NBA rules, if the ball is on the rim, but falling off the edge, then it's legal for either team to touch the ball. I think the Nuggets play JUST starts to touch the ball as the ball is falling off the edge, thus making it a legal play and a no call correct.

Joakim's first tip in play (from the 2nd clip posted) looks legal to me.

Odd rule for the NBA....so much more subjective than being over the rim or not. I'd bet that if the defender had taken if off the rim at that time, they would have called BI/GT and if they didn't, the Nuggets and fans would be just as outraged.


Now, how could Joakim's contact be legal at any level? It was a try that was on the way down, was above the rim, and had a chance to go in????

It wasn't an alley oop, which only becomes legal to grab because it is off to the side/front of the basket....where it isn't going in.

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't talking about the play from the first clip...I meant the play that bob was referencing in the 2nd clip posted.

The NBA does give out rules clinics/tests to announcers...every now and then you'll see an article written about this before the NBA season starts. This is also where most announcers are going to hear about the league's POE's and rule changes for the year. But I mean it doesn't matter to the networks if announcers fail...it's whatever.

And no professional league is going to get involved with a network's announcers on things such as rules knowledge..especially not on the local level (as was in this case).

Interestingly,
 

The NCAA GT rule reads differently from NFHS and NBA. So that helps things.

While the rules are generally the same for all three levels, there are differences:

NFHS:

All that matters is if it's a try and the ball on its downward flight and a chance to go in. Ball can be contacted off the glass if the ball is still on its upward flight. Also BI applies on a throw-in

NCAA:

Must be a try and the ball on its downward flight and a chance to go in. The ball can not be contacted after it's touched the glass above the level of the rim with a chance to go in. BI applies on throw-ins

Edit: And apparently, it applies to defensive players only according to 4-34-1

NBA

Applies anytime a ball is in flight with a chance to score and on its downward flight. Goaltending if the ball is contacted after it hits the glass with a chance to go in...also goaltending if the ball is contacted below the rim if the ball is on its upward flight (with a chance to score). There can be no goaltending or BI during a throw-in, so a player could catch the ball above the cylinder straight from a throw-in. Also not BI if the ball is contacted on the rim, but falling off the edge.

My understanding of the NCAA rule is that GT can only apply to defensive players.

Went back and looked at the rule...did not know NCAA made that distinction.

Interesting. Didn't know that. Seems a bit unfair to make a live ball playable by one team but not the other.

Goaltending ...
 

Might I add: Outside the cylinder?

So badly they were willing to fight over it....SMH :eek:

Kendall Gill, Tim Doyle in altercation following Comcast SportsNet show - Blogs On Sports - Crain's Chicago Business

I have a question. NFHS rules.

4-22. Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while it is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket in flight.

Does this mean "in the cylinder". Or just anywhere above the ring and coming down? If it means in the cylinder, then Noahs play would have been legal, correct?

It means outside the cylinder. If it's in the cylinder, then it's Basket Interference.

Different name, similar infraction, same penalty (on this type of play).

Right. BI the ball has to be on or in the basket. In Noah's play, the ball wasn't over the rim, and the NFHS defination, I guess is not written well. Some might be interpret above the ring level as in the cylinder. All I was saying.

Well, at least this is the only poorly written, vague, or ambiguous definition or case play that they have. At least there are no incorrect or contradictory case plays and rules. :rolleyes:

Of all the things that are poorly written, that really isn't one of them. :rolleyes:

All I am saying is, some might read the rule as it is written and interpret it to mean as "In the cylinder".

Not really.

Above the level of the ring doesn't mean over the cylinder any more than above sea level means over the water. It is above a "level" a horizontal plane.

If that someone can't read that correctly, it isn't due to the way the rule is written.