Goaltending during a FT

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Its' goaltending (and a T) during a FT to touch the ball when it's outside the cylinder.

So, what if the ball is touched within the cylinder? What if a player reaches through the basket from below and contacts the ball outside the cylinder? By rule, these would seem to be BI, but then why would the penalty be less (no T)?

My understanding was that if a player was going to goaltend on a FT it was going to be a blatant lane violation typically on purpose. That is why a t is warranted for the goal tend. The BI with a ball bouncing around during a FT would usually be normal play and not warrant a T.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

My understanding was that if a player was going to goaltend on a FT it was going to be a blatant lane violation typically on purpose. That is why a t is warranted for the goal tend. The BI with a ball bouncing around during a FT would usually be normal play and not warrant a T.

also and maybe more so because you are not allowed to try to block or even touch a free throw attempt. In college it is a T also to goaltend FT. They don't have to violate lane provisions to do it because they could leave on release. Same now High school. Like you said it is because if you do it it has to be on purpose and egregious. The player who does it is being an a__thx

[Camron Rust]

BI can occur from just playing the rebound a bit too eagerly before the ball clears the rim. There is no reasonable excuse to accidentally GT a FT. Touching the ball through the basket while the ball is still outside the cylinder should probably be worthy of a T but that is so incredibly rare, far more so than the still rare GT on a FT, I guess it is OK if it falls under BI and only gets a violation.

[BillyMac]

I'm not trying to hijack anything, but the mention of basket interference, and goaltending, in the same thread gives me an opportunity to bring up one of my major NFHS pet peeves:

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.

The definition of goaltending did contain the requirement of the ball having to be outside of the imaginary cylinder 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.

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 its 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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

The BI with a ball bouncing around during a FT would usually be normal play and not warrant a T.

I agree, once the ball has touched the rim. But, it's possible to BI before that, and, in my mind, should carry the same penalty as GT on a FT.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree, once the ball has touched the rim. But, it's possible to BI before that, and, in my mind, should carry the same penalty as GT on a FT.

I thinking BI is something that could easily happen and would be a hefty penalty for what is essentially a normal basketball play like any other type of shot. GT during a FT is not a normal basketball play.

Peace

[JRutledge]

For the record, this is what a GT during a FT looks like.

Peace

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A side bar for this video:

Why did the coach tell his player to goal tend? And, did he notknow this would be a flagrant/DQ situation? And, would any of you whack the coach for telling his pkayer to do it (making a mockery of the game)? I'm not sure if he was upset with the calls or if it was some lame strategy but I can't see any benefit at all for having a player do this.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich1

A side bar for this video: Why did the coach tell his player to goal tend? ... lame strategy but I can't see any benefit at all for having a player do this.

Already answered:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As discussed in "our" meeting last night, the actions that I showed in this video, the team was doing it as a strategic action. They felt GTing the ball was going to give them a shot to keep the clock stopped and just get the ball back. The coach did not know it was a T and instructed his player to block the ball.

This coach certainly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich1

And, did he notknow this would be a flagrant/DQ situation?

I sure hope he didn't know this, because it isn't.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

A side bar for this video:

Why did the coach tell his player to goal tend?

Because he thought he was clever and that the officials would just count the bucket and give them the ball for the throwin. He didn't want a miss and rebound since the clock would start and they needed time more than anything.

Originally Posted by Rich1

And, did he notknow this would be a flagrant/DQ situation?

Nope. And as bob said, it is just a player T. It would only be a flagrant/dq if the player already had a T...and he didn't.

Originally Posted by Rich1

And, would any of you whack the coach for telling his pkayer to do it (making a mockery of the game)?

Absolutely not. The T on the player is sufficient. No need to penalize stupid any more.

Originally Posted by Rich1

I'm not sure if he was upset with the calls or if it was some lame strategy but I can't see any benefit at all for having a player do this.

He didn't know the rule. That's all.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich1

A side bar for this video:

Why did the coach tell his player to goal tend? And, did he notknow this would be a flagrant/DQ situation? And, would any of you whack the coach for telling his pkayer to do it (making a mockery of the game)? I'm not sure if he was upset with the calls or if it was some lame strategy but I can't see any benefit at all for having a player do this.

The way I understand it, he thought that it would just be a point given and they would get the ball back on the end line. Obviously he did not know the rule or the ramifications.

And no, I would not whack the coach. They are already ignorant enough, why compound the issue?

I think all of this was known after the game when the coach revealed his strategy. Keep in mind this coach was fired soon after this season.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I thinking BI is something that could easily happen and would be a hefty penalty for what is essentially a normal basketball play like any other type of shot. GT during a FT is not a normal basketball play.

Peace

The BI that I am talking about is NOT a normal basketball play -- it's just as egregious as the GT and should, imo, have the same penalty.

Once the ball hits the rim, then I agree -- any BI is now a normal play and the 1-point penalty is sufficient.

[JRutledge]

I guess I see your point Bob, but it seems to me that would be very difficult and rare to do such a thing in the first place. The ball would have to bounce right and the player would have to be in the perfect position.

As discussed in "our" meeting last night, the actions that I showed in this video, the team was doing it as a strategic action. They felt GTing the ball was going to give them a shot to keep the clock stopped and just get the ball back. The coach did not know it was a T and instructed his player to block the ball. In your situation, so much would have to bounce the right way (pun intended) to accomplish that goal (pun intended).

Peace

[Altor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The ball would have to bounce right and the player would have to be in the perfect position.
Peace

I think Bob is saying that if the ball is "in the cylinder", even if it had not yet hit, it would normally be BI not GT. There would be no bounce in this scenario.

As BillyMac points out for NFHS, though, you might have some rule backing to call it GT and assess the T.