GT for the win

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Aren't there times when it could be BI or GT?

Not according to the definitions as they are mutually exclusive at the NCAA/NFHS levels.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Aren't there times when it could be BI or GT?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not according to the definitions as they are mutually exclusive at the NFHS level.

Nevadaref: I've been taught the same thing, mutually exclusive. Over the years our local interpreters have added the statement "outside the cylinder" to the goaltending definition, but that statement is not in the NFHS rulebook. So if you have a situation where a player touches the ball during a field-goal try, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, while the ball is in the cylinder, and the ball has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, then, by strict interpretation of the written definition, the official can call either a goaltending violation, or a basket interference violation.

I would love to see any citations that include the statement "outside the cylinder" in the definition of goaltending, but without such, bainsey might have a point, and not the point on his head.

NFHS 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.

NFHS 4-6: Basket interference occurs when a player:
ART. 1 Touches the ball or any part of the basket (including the net) while
the ball is on or within either basket.
ART. 2 Touches the ball while any part of the ball is within the imaginary
cylinder which has the basket ring as its lower base.

[MD Longhorn]

I'm a bit surprised that some don't see this as an obvious call, in slo mo at least. Several angles show the ball to be in the cylinder when it's tapped by O'Neal. If it was one angle, I'd get it, 1 angle doesn't show enough - but when every single angle shows it inside the cylinder, it's rather obvious isn't it?

I will grant that it very likely was NOT going to go in on it's own - but that's not the criteria. In the cylinder when he touches it - that's the criteria.

And I agree with Adam... stupid play.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm a bit surprised that some don't see this as an obvious call, in slo mo at least. Several angles show the ball to be in the cylinder when it's tapped by O'Neal. If it was one angle, I'd get it, 1 angle doesn't show enough - but when every single angle shows it inside the cylinder, it's rather obvious isn't it?

I will grant that it very likely was NOT going to go in on it's own - but that's not the criteria. In the cylinder when he touches it - that's the criteria.

And I agree with Adam... stupid play.

The only problem is that the NBA has, as I was recently told, an extra caveat that allows the ball to be freely played if it is coming off the rim, even if it is still in the cylinder. So much easier and consistent to judge if it is in or is not in.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only problem is that the NBA has, as I was recently told, an extra caveat that allows the ball to be freely played if it is coming off the rim, even if it is still in the cylinder. So much easier and consistent to judge if it is in or is not in.

No, if it's on the rim and coming off it can be played. If it is not touching the rim then the ball cannot be touched if any part is in the cylinder.

Joe Borgia explained the rule on "Make the Call" a couple weeks ago and showed examples of each.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No, if it's on the rim and coming off it can be played. If it is not touching the rim then the ball cannot be touched if any part is in the cylinder.

Joe Borgia explained the rule on "Make the Call" a couple weeks ago and showed examples of each.

That makes it even more difficult to call and more likely to be inconsistent.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Channeling my inner JR in his memory.

Jurassic Referee wouldn't be hesitant about commenting on this play. How about it guys, and gals? Are goaltending and basket interference mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... Mutually exclusive. Over the years our local interpreters have added the statement "outside the cylinder" to the goaltending definition, but that statement is not in the NFHS rulebook. So if you have a situation where a player touches the ball during a field-goal try, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, while the ball is in the cylinder, and the ball has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, then, by strict interpretation of the written definition, the official can call either a goaltending violation, or a basket interference violation.

[Nevadaref]

Just for you, Billy, I went and researched this. I remembered learning GT as having to be outside of the imaginary cylinder when I began officiating.

Sure enough, the definition of goaltending did contain this requirement through the 2003-04 season. For some unknown reason the rule was edited without comment or announcement for the 2004-05 season and that part of the definition was dropped.

We can now have a debate about whether the former NFHS editor changed the rule with the new/current text or if it was just an oversight and the old language still applies.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Just for you, Billy, I went and researched this. I remembered learning GT as having to be outside of the imaginary cylinder when I began officiating.

Sure enough, the definition of goaltending did contain this requirement through the 2003-04 season. For some unknown reason the rule was edited without comment or announcement for the 2004-05 season and that part of the definition was dropped.

We can now have a debate about whether the former NFHS editor changed the rule with the new/current text or if it was just an oversight and the old language still applies.

Not sure it matter much as it remains a violation even if they overlap. FOr them to overlap, it can only be a try since GT is only on a try...so all the non-try cases can only be BI.

The only point where it really makes a difference is if it is on a FT. And that may be the reason it changed. Was it changed at the same time as the penalty for interfering with a FT was changed? BI on a FT used to be a T but was changed to a violation leaving only GT a FT as a T. That change made sense given that it really wouldn't be fair to get a T for rebounding a FT just a bit early but interfering with it before it hits does deserve a T. The change in wording on the definition of GT would keep interfering with a FT as GT until it hit.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Just for you, Billy, I went and researched this. I remembered learning GT as having to be outside of the imaginary cylinder when I began officiating. Sure enough, the definition of goaltending did contain this requirement through the 2003-04 season. For some unknown reason the rule was edited without comment or announcement for the 2004-05 season and that part of the definition was dropped.

Thanks Nevadaref. Because this was done with no comment, no announcement, or no accompanying rule change, I'm sure that it was an oversight. Like the "captain's line up" rule that was mistakenly dropped for several years, and then had to be put back in the rule book.

2002-03 NFHS 4-22: Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while: a) the ball is in downward flight. b) the entire ball is above the level of the basket ring. c) the ball has the possibility of entering the basket in flight. d) the ball is not touching an imaginary cylinder which has the basket ring as it's lower base.

2012-13 NFHS 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.