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?

AremRed, frezer11, and Billy.
 

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?

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

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.

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.

Ding Ding Ding!!! Jackpot!!!
 

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.

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

Not Palpable ...
 

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)

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

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

MTD, Sr.

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

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.

Basket Interference ???
 

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

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.

Like A Kick In The Pants ...
 

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.

No, this is the same as B1 catching the throw-in pass with a foot on a boundary line. The touch is legal and the player violates some other rule (out of bounds or BI), but not the prohibition on kicking or punching the ball with a closed fist.

Award two points and reverse the arrow as the throw-in ends with the touch that causes BI.

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.

I was actually referring to a throw in, not a free throw.

I've never seen that happen on a TI, which is probably why I assumed you were writing about a FT. I guess I'm ambivalent about this one. (In the old days, I think it would have been a 5 second violation, as the rule used to require it to be touched in bounds within 5 seconds . . . .)

This is key. And I think this is what would likely get missed and screwed up if this were to happen.

I don't think it's a problem. The thrower is required to throw it so that it touches a player on the court. If he throws it and it gets lodged in the rim, he has failed to meet that requirement just the same as if he threw it out of bounds.

Pretend I'm From Missouri, Show Me ...
 

Sounds good (especially the example of the out of bounds call, combined with your statement "The touch is legal and the player violates some other rule"). So the only illegal touches on a throwin are a kicked ball, and a punched ball? I believe you, but do you have a citation?

(We've had similar discussions on an illegal touch (catch) by one of the jumpers during a jump ball, and whether, or not, to reset the clock to zero if it started in error.)