Goaltending during a FT
 

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.

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

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.

Unannounced ???
 

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.

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

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Qv2Jf97_q6c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

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.

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

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.

But BI does not mean hitting the ball necessarily. Not sure how you get the ball in the cylinder without GT on a FT which does not require usually 4 points to have GT during any other shot. But in a FT situation, you do not need those 4 things to apply. Once you touch the ball on a FT on the way to the basket, you get the heavier penalty. Maybe I am missing how that is really possible in most cases.

Peace

The definition of "GT on a FT" specifically says "outside the cylinder."

In the video you provided, what if the contact had been made a foot later (or whatever -- I didn't watch it again)? The ball would have been in the cylinder.

I get you on this, but I do not think the rule's intent is to call BI if the ball already hit the rim or the backboard.

Peace

Bob, under the rules as written it would not be a T. should be cause just as egregious but rule wording doesn't make that goaltending. GOALTENDING "occurs when player touches ball during FIELD GOAL TRY OT TAP while on downward flight above ring level….. Billy Mac points out with that definition a ball in the cylinder can now be BI or goaltending. But it is limited to field goal try or tap.

The goaltending definition relating to a free throw says it is goaltending if you touch the ball outside the cylinder. To have rule basis for the T it should say something like it is goaltending during a free throw if a player touches the ball before it hits the basket ring.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

4-22: Goaltending occurs when ... an opponent of the free thrower
touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

Yes opponent thx. And thx for cite

Bob, I may be mixing metaphors here but consider another scenario: It's a violation for a throw-in to go directly into a team's basket. However if, on a throw-in, a player violates the BI rule it's still BI.

In other words, BI exists independently of many other things that can take place, including GT.

Whaaaaaaat???
 

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.

It's The Definition Of Lame ...
 

Already answered:

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

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

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.
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.
Absolutely not. The T on the player is sufficient. No need to penalize stupid any more.
He didn't know the rule. That's all.

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

Can you describe a play that is BI before the ball touches the rim? I am having a hard time thinking of anything.

Sure. Ball is shot by Player A1. As ball is coming down but before it contacts the rim Player B1 grabs the rim and pulls down. B1 releases the rim and it rebounds into the oncoming ball, knocking the ball away.

Another....A1 shoots. Just before the ball enters the cylinder, B1 reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball blocking the shot. BI.

And another...A1 shoots. The ball is in the cylinder above the rim but has not yet the the rim. B1 touches the ball. Once it enters the cylinder, it is no longer goaltending but BI.

So, in the clip above, the coach/player could have achieved their desired goal if they had waited until the ball entered the cylinder or blocked the FT by reaching through the basket from below. The basket would have been awarded and there would be no T since only GT is penalized with a T on a FT.

Six Of One, Half Dozen Of The Other ...
 

Says who? Certainly not the NFHS.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post943164

Nfhs says during a free throw it is goaltending if it is touched Outside the cylinder....

The other portion of the definition says during a field goal try or tap....
By NFHS definitions, on a free throw, if you wait until the ball is in the cylinder and then touch it before it hits the rim it is BI. A gap in rule. They really should just say if you touch the ball before it hits the rim its a technical.....

Never happened to me but if it does I'm calling goaltending and a T. Portion of ball likely outside cylinder.....or something like that. Also, could fall back on unsporting...

Bob, on the player jumping up and hitting the free throw through net etc I think you could also fall back on unsporting if it wasn't an accident...

Exactly my point. I do get that it would be a pretty rare occurrence.

You have the rule backwards. If any part is in the cylinder, the BI rules (not the GT rules) apply. I do understand that you could probably get away with it and / or fall back on the unsporting aspects

Yeah, flippant comment without concentrating….thinking its close enough to call T…thx for correction.

Didn't Have My Morning Beer Yet ...
 

Sorry Camron Rust. I forgot that it was a free throw.

My advice is to call it by the book. You put yourself in danger when you decide to make a call because of your personal opinion or feelings about a situation.

Your supervisor or assignor can always defend you if the call adheres to the rules book. That person has more difficulty backing you if the call hinges upon your opinion of unsporting behavior or the "unfairness" of an action.