throw-in/goaltending

[mutantducky]

Inbounds throw-in. The ball is passed toward the rim. It clearly is going to hit the rim or B, offensive player catches the pass above the cylinder and dunks it in. (I'd love to see that!

Would goaltending apply to this situation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

Inbounds throw-in. The ball is passed toward the rim ... offensive player catches the pass above the cylinder and dunks it in. Would goaltending apply to this situation?

Absolutely not. Not even close. There has to be a try for goaltending to occur, and a throwin isn't a try. It's offensive basket interference.



A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. This is an example of basket interference.

Goaltending is 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.

(Old timers, like me, consider it not to be goaltending if the ball is in the cylinder above the basket, but that's not the way the present rule reads.)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Absolutely not. Not even close. There has to be a try for goaltending to occur, and a throwin isn't a try. It's offensive basket interference.



A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. These are examples of basket interference.

Goaltending is 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.

While I agree this is technically basket interference I suggest we use some common sense here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

While I agree this is technically basket interference I suggest we use some common sense here.

Common sense tells me that it's basket interference.

Goaltending has a series of very strict parameters:
- during a try, or tap
- while it is in its downward flight
- entirely above the basket ring level
- has the possibility of entering the basket

Old timers would try to add "outside of the cylinder, but in 2015, they would be dead wrong.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Common sense tells me that it's basket interference.

Goaltending has a series of very strict parameters:
- during a try, or tap
- while it is in its downward flight
- entirely above the basket ring level
- has the possibility of entering the basket

Old timers would try to add "outside of the cylinder, but in 2015, they would be dead wrong.

Billy, you can stop posting the goaltending rule. My first post said it was not goaltending and none of my posts since then have contradicted that. I don't agree it's basket inference though, that's not the intent of the rule.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I don't agree it's basket inference though, that's not the intent of the rule.

Your opinion would be incorrect. See the NFHS Case Book ruling.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Billy, you can stop posting the goaltending rule. My first post said it was not goaltending and none of my posts since then have contradicted that. I don't agree it's basket inference though, that's not the intent of the rule.

I don't understand why you disagree with the BI Rule does not apply to a TI? The Rule is pretty clear.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

While I agree this is technically basket interference I suggest we use some common sense here.

Pretty clear cut BI...no reason to not call it. Common sense, that isn't so common, such that is in direct contradiction to a clear rule, just because you don't like it, is a bad reason to not call an obvious infraction.

Without it, you could have a throwin from the side, pass over the rim, coming down towards the other side (or even into the basket) such that a teammate of the thrower could go up and slam it in (or even just touch it so it wasn't the throwin that was going directly in). That is the play they want to prohibit.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Without it, you could have a throwin from the side, pass over the rim, coming down towards the other side (or even into the basket) such that a teammate of the thrower could go up and slam it in (or even just touch it so it wasn't the throwin that was going directly in). That is the play they want to prohibit.

MTD, Camron has provided the answer to the question that I couldn't quite get the wording for. I wanted to know the basis of why the act needs to be penalized, as I couldn't think of a scenario where a team has an advantage, such that a violation needed to be in the book. Even though I don't think this scenario really gives the offense that much of an advantage, it's sort of what I was looking for.

There are other violations in the book that I don't agree with, but I will follow the rules as is the case with this scenario. For example, and another throw in situation, if the thrown ball lodges between the backboard and the rim, it's a violation. I've seen this a number of times and called it accordingly, even though I personally don't think it should be a violation, after all it's not like the kid did anything on purpose, or gave himself or his team an advantage. But the bottom line is this: Even when I do disagree with a rule or penalty, that DOES NOT prevent me from applying the rule as written. During a game, my opinion about how a rule is worded is completely irrelevant.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by frezer11

There are other violations in the book that I don't agree with, but I will follow the rules as is the case with this scenario. For example, and another throw in situation, if the thrown ball lodges between the backboard and the rim, it's a violation. I've seen this a number of times and called it accordingly, even though I personally don't think it should be a violation, after all it's not like the kid did anything on purpose, or gave himself or his team an advantage. But the bottom line is this: Even when I do disagree with a rule or penalty, that DOES NOT prevent me from applying the rule as written. During a game, my opinion about how a rule is worded is completely irrelevant.

This actually makes perfect sense once you look at context. It just has nothing to do with whether the shooter did something "wrong." 90% of FTs are rebounded by the defense. This rule simply gives the ball to the defense (who was by far most likley to have it) instead of giving the shoooter who missed the shot a 50% chance of getting it back by going to the arrow.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Pretty clear cut BI...no reason to not call it. Common sense, that isn't so common, such that is in direct contradiction to a clear rule, just because you don't like it, is a bad reason to not call an obvious infraction.

You're right, I shouldn't no-call something just because the result is not palpable to me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

You're right, I shouldn't no-call something just because the result is not palpable to me.

A lot of us old timers had problems when the NFHS made excessive arm swinging (with no contact) a technical foul. It was a hard pill to swallow. Few of us called it unless it was really, really excessive. Now that it's back to a violation, we call it all the time (when it happens).

There. I admit it. There's some type of statute of limitations on this? Right? I don't need the Fashion Police knocking on my door with an arrest warrant.

Now, can we work on this one that I find not very palpable in its present form?

NFHS 9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

NFHS 10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.

Change 10-3-2 from a technical foul to a violation. Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds should carry the same penalty as leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

And, voilà:

NFHS 9-3-3-B: A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This is an example of basket interference.

Casebook: 9.11.2:

Since it is a violation for thrower A1 to throw the ball directly ito the basket from out of bounds, what happens if B1 touches the throw-in pass while the ball is in the cylinder above A's basket? RULING: B1 is charged with basket interference and a two-point goal is scored. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end lines as after a scored goal except the official shall place the ball at the disposal of a player of Team B for a throw-in from any point outside the end line.

Ok, fine, I admit it, I did not realize that BI does not specify a try, I would've messed this one up. That said, why in the hell do the rules allow this to happen???? Is this simply an oversight that has never been changed/addressed, or is there a purpose for this ruling?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Ok, fine, I admit it, I did not realize that BI does not specify a try, I would've messed this one up. That said, why in the hell do the rules allow this to happen???? Is this simply an oversight that has never been changed/addressed, or is there a purpose for this ruling?

This is a good example of: You penalize them for their ignorance.

Teach your kids the rules, coaches. They should know better than to commit basket interference any time. (there is nothing I admire more than seeing a player who obviously pulls his hand(s) back and waits for the ball to clear the cylinder before grabbing it) They really should know better than to do it in this case.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Casebook: 9.11.2:

Since it is a violation for thrower A1 to throw the ball directly ito the basket from out of bounds, what happens if B1 touches the throw-in pass while the ball is in the cylinder above A's basket? RULING: B1 is charged with basket interference and a two-point goal is scored. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end lines as after a scored goal except the official shall place the ball at the disposal of a player of Team B for a throw-in from any point outside the end line.

Ok, fine, I admit it, I did not realize that BI does not specify a try, I would've messed this one up. That said, why in the hell do the rules allow this to happen???? Is this simply an oversight that has never been changed/addressed, or is there a purpose for this ruling?

After reading your other posts in other threads I get the feeling that you are a young official who does not have a good grasp of Rule 4 nor do you have grasp how different rules interact with each other.

I don't understand why you have a problem with the definitions of Throw-in, Field Goal Attempt, Baske Interference, and Goaltending and how these rules interact?

MTD, Sr.