throw-in/goaltending
 

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?

Another Myth Bites The Dust ...
 

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.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6230/6...473e048e_m.jpg

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.)

No. Goaltending only applies to a field-goal try or tap. A throw-in pass is neither.

Read the definition of goaltending. If it's not a try, there is no violation

Check It Out ...
 

Free throw?

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, or an opponent of the free thrower
touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

9-12: A player shall not commit goaltending, as in 4-22 ... See 10-3-9 for additional penalty for goaltending
during a free throw.

10-3-9: A player shall not: Goaltend during a free throw (technical foul).

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

That's exactly what I wrote. As the free-throw definition does not specify it being different from a field-goal try, I consider it a field-goal try even if stats people do not. Thus, GT applies during FT's.

It's Not A Try ...
 

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.

Only The Lonely (Roy Orbison, 1960) ...
 

Sorry, the word "only" and "field-goal try" through me.

But it is different. On a free throw, the ball can be anywhere outside of the cylinder, it can be on it's upward flight, it doesn't have to be entirely above the basket ring, and it doesn't have to have a chance to go in.

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.

This is NOT ever a Goaltending; there can NOT ever be Goaltending on a Throw-in.

This is Basket Interference.

Only the Basketball Interference Rule applies during a Throw-in. The Goaltending Rule does NOT apply during a Throw-in.

MTD, Sr.

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?

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.

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.

I don't think that I do have a problem with those definitions, though I admit I've never considered BI as a possibility on a throw in. I misspoke for the sake of avoiding a drawn out explanation earlier when I said "I did not realize that BI does not specify a try..." because I do know its possible on, say, a skip-pass scenario. Again, I hadn't considered it on a throw in, and even though it's clearly a case play which I quoted earlier, I must've just not processed that one while reading the book.

My complaint is not that I won't call or apply the rules as written, but my question is why that definition is worded the way it is. It seems to go against my intuition that points can be scored in this manner, and to go back to my initial question, is there a purpose for this ruling?