throw-in/goaltending

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Basket Interference (BI) and Goaltending (GT) are violations that involve the Ball. I will discuss BI first, then GT (not involving FTs), and then GT involving FTs.


BI applies to a Live Ball that is:

a) IN,

b) ON the Basket, or

c) IN or TOUCHING the Imaginary Cylinder above the Basket Ring.

The BI Rule does not care how or what caused the Ball to be in (a), (b), or (c). The BI Rule only cares about the Ball being touched while it is in (a), (b), or (c).


GT also applies to a Live Ball, but to a Live Ball during a FGA (including a Tap) that is:

a) on its way downward flight,

b) entirely above the Basket Ring,

c) has a chance the possibility of the Basket in flight.


A special note to Frezer11, as you can see there really is a difference between BI and GT and why they are different.


(With apologies to Monty Python.) And now for something completely different. GT of a FT is an completely different situation. And the Rule goes back to the early 1980's when the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees changed the FT to allow players in Spaces along the FT Lane to enter the FT Lane after the Ball was released by the FT Shooter during his/her FT Attempt.

The Rules Committees soon realized that a very quick Defender could enter the FT Lane after the Shooter and released the Ball and block the FT Attempt before it had started its downward flight.

The Rules Committees revised the definition of GT to include a Defender (not a teammate of the FT Shooter) touching the Ball after the FT Shooter had released the Ball and before the Ball entered the Imaginary Cyinder above the Basket Ring, as well made it a TF charged to the Defender that committed the GT.

The NFHS Rules Committee never changed the definition of GT when it reverted back to the old rule that prevented the players in the Spaces along the FT Lane from entering the FT Lane until the Ball had touched the Backboard or Basket. And now that Players in the Spaces along the FT Lane can enter the FT Lane after the Ball is released by the FT Shooter, the GT of a FT Rule has some relevance.

MTD, Sr.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Basket Interference (BI) and Goaltending (GT) are violations that involve the Ball. I will discuss BI first, then GT (not involving FTs), and then GT involving FTs.


BI applies to a Live Ball that is:

a) IN,

b) ON the Basket, or

c) IN or TOUCHING the Imaginary Cylinder above the Basket Ring.

The BI Rule does not care how or what caused the Ball to be in (a), (b), or (c). The BI Rule only cares about the Ball being touched while it is in (a), (b), or (c).


GT also applies to a Live Ball, but to a Live Ball during a FGA (including a Tap) that is:

a) on its way downward flight,

b) entirely above the Basket Ring,

c) has a chance the possibility of the Basket in flight.


A special note to Frezer11, as you can see there really is a difference between BI and GT and why they are different.


(With apologies to Monty Python.) And now for something completely different. GT of a FT is an completely different situation. And the Rule goes back to the early 1980's when the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees changed the FT to allow players in Spaces along the FT Lane to enter the FT Lane after the Ball was released by the FT Shooter during his/her FT Attempt.

The Rules Committees soon realized that a very quick Defender could enter the FT Lane after the Shooter and released the Ball and block the FT Attempt before it had started its downward flight.

The Rules Committees revised the definition of GT to include a Defender (not a teammate of the FT Shooter) touching the Ball after the FT Shooter had released the Ball and before the Ball entered the Imaginary Cyinder above the Basket Ring, as well made it a TF charged to the Defender that committed the GT.

The NFHS Rules Committee never changed the definition of GT when it reverted back to the old rule that prevented the players in the Spaces along the FT Lane from entering the FT Lane until the Ball had touched the Backboard or Basket. And now that Players in the Spaces along the FT Lane can enter the FT Lane after the Ball is released by the FT Shooter, the GT of a FT Rule has some relevance.

MTD, Sr.

I thank you for posting this, and I don't want to sound unappreciative or arrogant, but I really think I do have a pretty solid understanding of those differences. My question is not the interpretation of the rule, but rather why the rule exists the way that it does. I get why basket interference exists on a pass, but why is BI possible when a field goal is not? Is there a reason the rule includes a throw in rather than excluding that scenario?

[mutantducky]

? I guess simply because you can't make a basket from a throw-in. So it has to be BI and not goaltending

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Basket Interference (BI) and Goaltending (GT) are violations that involve the Ball. I will discuss BI first, then GT (not involving FTs), and then GT involving FTs.


BI applies to a Live Ball that is:

a) IN,

b) ON the Basket, or

c) IN or TOUCHING the Imaginary Cylinder above the Basket Ring.

The BI Rule does not care how or what caused the Ball to be in (a), (b), or (c). The BI Rule only cares about the Ball being touched while it is in (a), (b), or (c).


GT also applies to a Live Ball, but to a Live Ball during a FGA (including a Tap) that is:

a) on its way downward flight,

b) entirely above the Basket Ring,

c) has a chance the possibility of the Basket in flight.


A special note to Frezer11, as you can see there really is a difference between BI and GT and why they are different.


(With apologies to Monty Python.) And now for something completely different. GT of a FT is an completely different situation. And the Rule goes back to the early 1980's when the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees changed the FT to allow players in Spaces along the FT Lane to enter the FT Lane after the Ball was released by the FT Shooter during his/her FT Attempt.

The Rules Committees soon realized that a very quick Defender could enter the FT Lane after the Shooter and released the Ball and block the FT Attempt before it had started its downward flight.

The Rules Committees revised the definition of GT to include a Defender (not a teammate of the FT Shooter) touching the Ball after the FT Shooter had released the Ball and before the Ball entered the Imaginary Cyinder above the Basket Ring, as well made it a TF charged to the Defender that committed the GT.

The NFHS Rules Committee never changed the definition of GT when it reverted back to the old rule that prevented the players in the Spaces along the FT Lane from entering the FT Lane until the Ball had touched the Backboard or Basket. And now that Players in the Spaces along the FT Lane can enter the FT Lane after the Ball is released by the FT Shooter, the GT of a FT Rule has some relevance.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by frezer11

I thank you for posting this, and I don't want to sound unappreciative or arrogant, but I really think I do have a pretty solid understanding of those differences. My question is not the interpretation of the rule, but rather why the rule exists the way that it does. I get why basket interference exists on a pass, but why is BI possible when a field goal is not? Is there a reason the rule includes a throw in rather than excluding that scenario?

frezer11:

Without discussing GT of FTA:

NFHS R1-S10-A1 defines the Basket. By adding the Imaginary Cylinder to R1-S1-A1 we now have the basis for BI. As I have stated before, the BI Rule does NOT care how or what caused a Live Ball to be in or touching the Basket Ring, or touching the Imaginary Cylinder above the Basket Ring.

GT applies the a Live Ball is outside the Imaginary Cylinder above the Basket Ring during a FTA subject to the criteria I listed in my recent post.


The definitions of BI and GT are quite specific. I don't understand you question.

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.

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)

[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.

Originally Posted by frezer11

I get why basket interference exists on a pass, but why is BI possible when a field goal is not?

Exactly. Chalk one up to FIBA rules for having some common sense I guess.

[mutantducky]

this may be a bit hard to see. But for NFHS would you call BI here?
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400578852

15 second mark, Suns player hits the net. Mike Conley spots it. Also looks like the refs had different calls at the 55 mark, the And 1 play by Marc Gasol. Unless the commentary is wrong.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

NFHS would you call BI here? Suns player hits the net.

Tough call. The ball may have been bouncing above the ring when the net was touched, and if so, no basket interference.

[La Rikardo]

A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. Before the throw-in ends, B1 commits basket interference at A's basket.

This is no different from B kicking the ball before the end of the throw-in, right? A is awarded two points, keeps the arrow, and B will have a BCELTI.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. Before the throw-in ends, B1 commits basket interference at A's basket.
This is no different from B kicking the ball before the end of the throw-in, right?

Great question. I don't have a citation here, but I can guess that since the throwin didn't end with an legal touch, it must like a kicked ball, so the throwin really hasn't ended. A keeps the arrow.

I can't wait until I get home from work to see if I was correct.