GT for the win

[Adam]

Stupid play.

[Nevadaref]

Have watched it three times and still am not certain that his action is illegal.
I see the right hand in the net, through the ring, which then withdraws prior to the arrival of the ball on after the bounce. This is followed by his left hand swatting the ball away after it contacts the ring for the 2nd time. I can't tell if the ball was still within the cylinder or not.

Not sure about NBA terminology, but for NCAA/NFHS the decision would fall under the BI rule, not GT, because the bouncing ball was on the way up, not down, when touched.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Have watched it three times and still am not certain that his action is illegal.
I see the right hand in the net, through the ring, which then withdraws prior to the arrival of the ball on after the bounce. This is followed by his left hand swatting the ball away after it contacts the ring for the 2nd time. I can't tell if the ball was still within the cylinder or not.

Not sure about NBA terminology, but for NCAA/NFHS the decision would fall under the BI rule, not GT, because the bouncing ball was on the way up, not down, when touched.

Pretty sure going up or down isnt what determines whether it is BI or GT in NCAA/NFHS. You might want to check the definitions again

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Pretty sure going up or down isn't what determines whether it is BI or GT NFHS.

NFHS: The ball has to be on its downward flight in order to be goaltending.

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

Basket interference: A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder.



When it comes to defeating basketball rule myths, well, I'll just let the Marvelettes tell you, as only they can:

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS: The ball has to be on its downward flight in order to be goaltending.

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

Basket interference: A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder.

Thanks BillyMac, looks to me like the determining factor between BI or GT is whether or not the ball is in the cylinder. Once in the cylinder, even if moving downward, the call would be BI, not GT.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Looks to me like the determining factor between BI or GT is whether or not the ball is in the cylinder.

NFHS: That's only one factor, there are others. For example, for goaltending, it has to be a try, or a tap. For basket interference, it can be a try, or a tap, or something else, like an inbounds pass that ends up on the rim, or a ball that ricochets off a player's shoulder that ends up on the rim.

[Adam]

Yes, the call would be BI in fed rules, but NBA rules differ here, and I think it's GT.

[bainsey]

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

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Thanks BillyMac, looks to me like the determining factor between BI or GT is whether or not the ball is in the cylinder. Once in the cylinder, even if moving downward, the call would be BI, not GT.

In the cylinder is ONE of the determining factors. Another requirement of GT is downward flight. Billy pointed out that GT also requires a try for goal.

Since I can't tell from the video clip angle whether the ball is within the cylinder, I cited the upward motion of the ball at the time of player contact as the definitive reason that this couldn't be GT under NFHS/NCAA rules.

Now if one could be positive that the ball was withing the cylinder, then one could cite that.

[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.