A 3-point goaltend?

[ShoogarBear]

Got to say I've never seen that before.

Although it seemed pretty clear that the ball was short and it should have only been a two.

Raise your hands if you flashed back to Tim tipping the ball in in the T-Mac game . . .

*raises hand*

[ALVAREZ6]

What happened with the goal tend, I heard about it in the chatroom, but what actually happened...

who goaltended?

Whoever did, IDK how the hell you are that retarded to goaltend a 3 point shot.

[ShoogarBear]

:lol

Uh, it was Duncan . . .

And like I said, the ball was short and I think under the rim. Tim reached up and tipped it into the hoop. Shoulda been just a two.

[Nikos]

That ball was unquestionably going to miss and there was maybe a small chance it would have grazed the rim, at best.

Weak sequence.

[Slomo]

The ball was clearly short and Tim's hand was below the rim. How this is goaltending I do not know - but it was a tip in!

[Jimcs50]

Yeah, but that is the rule, you can not touch a 3 pointer and tip it in for 2 pts. It always counts as 3. It happened to Sheed this year against somebody, same thing, it would have hit the front of the rim and he tipped it in....3 points.

This rule to to keep you from turning 3s into 2s.

[CrazyOne]

It couldn't have been a goal-tend, since it was below the rim. Can anybody find the rule book on tip-ins by the defense?

[exstatic]

Not goaltending, just bad judgement. With no Cavs in the area, you let that one go out of bounds. Man, McInnis was shooting like crap near the end. Two airballs, and a toe on the line 2 pointer.

[CrazyOne]

Wow.. Nostradamus predicted my post... :lol

[ShoogarBear]

Jim, I agree that's the call if you rule it a goaltend.

My point it that it should not have been ruled a goaltend, just a missed shot tipped into the basket.

[exstatic]

:lol

[Jimcs50]

It is the rule, it could have hit the rim and bounced up and gone in...if the ball is going downward and is in the cylinder(hits the rim) is is GT.

[Jimcs50]

It couldn't have been a goal-tend, since it was below the rim. Can anybody find the rule book on tip-ins by the defense?


Did you ever doubt me, Crazy?

[ca®lo]

im just glad duncan made up for it by sinking his last second clutch jumper!

it was a tip in though.. and i think it would really count as a three. no matter what

[Slomo]

It is the rule, it could have hit the rim and bounced up and gone in...if the ball is going downward and is in the cylinder(hits the rim) is is GT. I just checked the recording. The call was wrong for two reasons:
1. That ball wasn't going to hit the rim
2. TD hand was never above the rim

both of those reasons prevent the ball to be in the cylinder thus no goaltend.

But I can also see how the refs made the wrong call without seeing the replay. WTH it's probably less embarassing than a tip in for the wrong team :p

[Jimcs50]

I just checked the recording. The call was wrong for two reasons:
1. That ball wasn't going to hit the rim
2. TD hand was never above the rim

both of those reasons prevent the ball to be in the cylinder thus no goaltend.

But I can also see how the refs made the wrong call without seeing the replay. WTH it's probably less embarassing than a tip in for the wrong team :p

Unless you were next to rim, you could not tell if TD touched it before the rim.

[Slomo]

Unless you were next to rim, you could not tell if TD touched it before the rim.
There is a camera angle that shows it pretty good, but as I said it's not obvious and it was an honest call.

[FearDaFro]

The ball could have been 10 feet short, it would still have been counted as a three-pointer, because no cavalier touched the ball.

[Slomo]

The ball could have been 10 feet short, it would still have been counted as a three-pointer, because no cavalier touched the ball. :wtf

[FearDaFro]

:wtf

What I mean is, after MicInnis shot the ball, any spur is treated as an inanimate object until the ball hits the floor, the rim, a member of the same team, or the other team takes posession.....the ball deflecting off of Duncan's hands doesn't count as any of the above.

So basically, tim tipping the ball in is just like the ball hitting the backboard and going in. It counts as a three-pointer.

If a cavalier would have touched the ball at any point after the shot, and then tim deflected it in, it would have been only a two-pointer

[Slomo]

OK, I get it now.

[Jimcs50]

What I mean is, after MicInnis shot the ball, any spur is treated as an inanimate object until the ball hits the floor, the rim, a member of the same team, or the other team takes posession.....the ball deflecting off of Duncan's hands doesn't count as any of the above.

So basically, tim tipping the ball in is just like the ball hitting the backboard and going in. It counts as a three-pointer.

If a cavalier would have touched the ball at any point after the shot, and then tim deflected it in, it would have been only a two-pointer


That is what they said when Sheed tipped one in earlier this year.

[Sec24Row7]

That's not right... the rule is it gets credited to the CLOSEST Cavalier.

THAT is the rule.

[Jimcs50]

That's not right... the rule is it gets credited to the CLOSEST Cavalier.

THAT is the rule.

Not on a goal tend..it is credited to the shooter.

[Kori Ellis]

Jim, they are saying that it is NOT a goal tend -- but just a tip-in.

[TheWriter]

Then shouldn't it have only counted as two and not three?

[Jimcs50]

Jim, they are saying that it is NOT a goal tend -- but just a tip-in.

Yes, but you can not tell for sure if the ball would not hit the rim, the ball was still at rim level, so that is why the ref had to call GT.

It would not have gone in, but that was the call...he made up for it and now he will not do it again...so no harm done.

[Kori Ellis]

I understand that Jim, but what they have been trying to clarify in this thread is IF it was not called a goal tend and it was just called a tip-in, would it have been a 2 or a 3?

[ShoogarBear]

If I'm interpreting him correctly, FearDaFro is claiming that if (to give an exaggeration) a Cav airballed a three, then Tim didn't touch it until the ball was waist-high and then somehow the ball bounced off his hands into the basket, it would count as a three.

[Jimcs50]

I understand that Jim, but what they have been trying to clarify in this thread is IF it was not called a goal tend and it was just called a tip-in, would it have been a 2 or a 3?

Kori, it would be a 3, if GT was the call, even if the ball was not going in.

As I said, the same thing happened to Detroit earlier, the ball had no chance to go in, but Sheed hit it with his hands trying to reb, and it popped in the basket, it was ruled a 3 pointer.

[ShoogarBear]

Kori, it would be a 3, if GT was the call, even if the ball was not going in.


Jim, you're still missing it.

What if GT was NOT the call?

[Kori Ellis]

Jim, the question is IF goaltending was NOT the call.

[GoSpurs21]

It is the rule, it could have hit the rim and bounced up and gone in...if the ball is going downward and is in the cylinder(hits the rim) is is GT.Everything but "in the cylinder" was correct. Tim deflected the ball just before it hit the rim so technically it wasn't in the cylinder but was on the way down.

I think if Tim doesnt touch the ball it goes for a long rebound, either way Tim should have not touched the ball. I'm just glad he nailed the game winner. Tim was on a mission in the 2nd half. I wonder what set him off. Whatever it was that needs to happen several times a game.

[FearDaFro]

That's not right... the rule is it gets credited to the CLOSEST Cavalier.

THAT is the rule.


No, you're thinking of REBOUND plays.

If the ball had hit the rim, bounced off, and duncan had tipped it in, the basket would have gone to the nearest cavalier for two.

Its just like a fly ball hitting an outfielder in the head and bouncing over the wall for a home run. Now, the ball wasn't hit far enough to be a real home run, but it counts just the same.

[san antonio spurs]

No, you're thinking of REBOUND plays.

If the ball had hit the rim, bounced off, and duncan had tipped it in, the basket would have gone to the nearest cavalier for two.

Its just like a fly ball hitting an outfielder in the head and bouncing over the wall for a home run. Now, the ball wasn't hit far enough to be a real home run, but it counts just the same.
true
________
GLASS WEED PIPE (http://glasspipes.net/)

[Spurminator]

Whatever it was, it did sort of remind me of Jose Canseco...

[Dex]

As many others have stated, the shot was NOT a goal tend, but rather a tipped shot that went in. The three points deservedly went to McInnis because it was his shot which was 'almost blocked' by Tim.

It's easier if you look at it like this: If McInnis had shot a three-pointer and someone went for the block but just grazed the shot with their finger, and the shot managed to still go in, it's still a completed three pointer despite the fact that the other team got a touch on it. It happens all the times when players just manage to barely touch a jumper on the way up and it still hits home.

Tim basically did the same thing, instead his touch on the ball tipped it on the way back down and coincidentally, helped it into the basket.

It was a good call, though I still wasn't very happy about it. :oops

[Jimcs50]

As many others have stated, the shot was NOT a goal tend, but rather a tipped shot that went in. The three points deservedly went to McInnis because it was his shot which was 'almost blocked' by Tim.

It's easier if you look at it like this: If McInnis had shot a three-pointer and someone went for the block but just grazed the shot with their finger, and the shot managed to still go in, it's still a completed three pointer despite the fact that the other team got a touch on it. It happens all the times when players just manage to barely touch a jumper on the way up and it still hits home.

Tim basically did the same thing, instead his touch on the ball tipped it on the way back down and coincidentally, helped it into the basket.

It was a good call, though I still wasn't very happy about it. :oops

This is what I was saying, since the ball had not hit the rim, it was still the original shot shot. Had it hit the rim, and TD tipped it back into the basket on the reb, it would have been two points, awarded to the closest Cav player.

Kori, I knew what you were asking, but it was never in question, whether it was 3 points or not. According to the rules, it was 3pts.

If however it was tipped in by a teammate, after it was below the rim, it would have been a 2 pt basket.

This rule protects the integrity of the game. It keeps the opponent from ruining 3 pointer, by turning it into a 2 pointer, and it keeps a teammate from turning a missed 3 pointer into a 3 pointer from close range.

[sa_butta]

Then shouldn't it have only counted as two and not three?\

agreed
unless they are saying Tims hand is part of the rim and bounced of
and went in. BS

:bang

[Jimcs50]

\

agreed
unless they are saying Tims hand is part of the rim and bounced of
and went in. BS

:bang


Go read the rule book.

[Jimcs50]

g. Touch any live ball from within the playing area that is on its downward flight with an opportunity to touch the basket ring. This is considered to be a "field goal attempt" or trying for a goal.
h. Touch the ball at any time with a hand which is through the basket ring.
i. Vibrate the rim or backboard so as to cause the ball to make an unnatural bounce.
PENALTY: If the violation is at the opponent's basket, the offended team is awarded two points, if the attempt is from the two point zone and three points if it is from the three point zone. The crediting of the score and subsequent procedure is the same as if the awarded score has resulted from the ball having gone through the basket, except that the official shall hand the ball to a player of the team entitled to the throw-in. If the violation is at a team's own basket, no points can be scored and the ball is awarded to the offended team at the free throw line extended on either sideline. If there is a violation by both teams, play shall be resumed by a jump ball between any two opponents at the center circle.

[Jimcs50]

All it has to do is have a chance to touch the rim, not go in, but just touch the rim.

[sa_butta]

I think I get it now
It would be like if someone attempted a shot from beyond
the arc and was blocked or grazes off the hand by the defense and goes in
that would be a three.
makes sense now

[sa_butta]

thank you for clarification

[Sec24Row7]

It wasn't GOING to touch the rim.

God this thread is rediculous.

[Kori Ellis]

I'm still not clear on the rule.

If it is not called a goaltend (yes, I know it was) and fell short of the front of the rim and Tim just tipped it in, would it be a two or a three, according to the rules?

It sounds like Dex, FeartheFro, etc are saying that it would be a three. Others are saying it would be a two.

[Duncan21]

it should of only been a two

[Jimcs50]

it should of only been a two

TD touched the ball before it hit the rim..it could have grazed the rim...it was not that clear that it would have missed the rim at all...look at the replay...I taped the game and have looked at it a dozen times, it could have touched the rim, that is all it has to do to be called a GT, is have a chance to touch the rim.

Kori, had the ball not had a chance to touch the rim, then GT, if it had no chance and was below level of rim and TD tipped it in, then it would have been only 2 pts.

[Kori Ellis]

Kori, had the ball not had a chance to touch the rim, then GT, if it had no chance and was below level of rim and TD tipped it in, then it would have been only 2 pts

Okay, that's what I'm clarifying. Because some people in this thread are saying it doesn't matter if it didn't have a chance to hit the rim or not, it's still a three. That's what I knew was wrong. BTW, I don't know what you see on the tape (I haven't re-watched it) but most people who re-watched it say that it had no chance to hit the rim and was way short.

[Jimcs50]

Okay, that's what I'm clarifying. Because some people in this thread are saying it doesn't matter if it didn't have a chance to hit the rim or not, it's still a three. That's what I knew was wrong. BTW, I don't know what you see on the tape (I haven't re-watched it) but most people who re-watched it say that it had no chance to hit the rim and was way short.

I have the Cav feed on my dish, and from the angle, you could not tell if the ball would have grazed the rim, it had no chance to go in, but it could have touched the front of th erim...part of the ball was still above the rim....hence the questionable chance.

[Useruser666]

Dex explained it in one post:


As many others have stated, the shot was NOT a goal tend, but rather a tipped shot that went in. The three points deservedly went to McInnis because it was his shot which was 'almost blocked' by Tim.

It's easier if you look at it like this: If McInnis had shot a three-pointer and someone went for the block but just grazed the shot with their finger, and the shot managed to still go in, it's still a completed three pointer despite the fact that the other team got a touch on it. It happens all the times when players just manage to barely touch a jumper on the way up and it still hits home.

Tim basically did the same thing, instead his touch on the ball tipped it on the way back down and coincidentally, helped it into the basket.

Kori, it's just like a tipped or partially blocked shot that goes in. Since the ball didn't; A. touch the rim or backboard, B. A Cav player touch the ball, who was standing inside the arc, or out of bounds.

[FearDaFro]

Kori, had the ball not had a chance to touch the rim, then GT, if it had no chance and was below level of rim and TD tipped it in, then it would have been only 2 pts.

I'm sorry, but thats completely untrue.
For the last time, a shot is a shot until 1) a person of the same team touches the ball, 2) a person on the other team takes POSESSION of the ball, or 3) the ball hit the rim/backboard and rebounds outside of the rim.

None of those three things happened on that play.

It would have been a three-pointer anyway.

[Jimcs50]

I'm sorry, but thats completely untrue.

It would have been a three-pointer anyway.

Read the rule...it has to be above the rim, had it passed the rim w/o any chance to hit the rim, it would have been 2 points.

[J218923]

It shouldnt hav counted if it was a two and it was short of the basket.

[FearDaFro]

It shouldnt hav counted if it was a two and it was short of the basket.

Obviously, but it WASNT a two, it was a three....

that was still classified as a shot, not a rebound.

[Solid D]

I thought it looked like the ball was going to at least scrape the rim...but it was not going in.

My first reaction was that's a three, because it was so close to the rim when Timmy touched it.

Good question for Ronnie Nunn on NBATV show, "Ask the Ref"...or whatever they call that segment.

[Kori Ellis]

Okay, another question, did they actually call it a goaltend? or just a tip-in? I didn't see the refs calling it a goaltend and don't they have to whistle a goaltend?

[MosesGuthrie]

I am pretty sure it was called a tip in.

[Dex]

The rule about touching the rim is insubstantial in this instance because goaltending was not the case. The shot was a completed field goal.

Say a player shoots a jumper a little strong, but it gets grazed by a defender on the way up, thereby restricting its velocity a little bit and causing that shot to go in the basket. The shooter still gets credit for that shot, regardless of the shotblocker getting a slight touch on the ball. It's not THAT uncommon in basketball; lord knows I've gotten my hands on plenty of shots before and still watched it go in.

This case has the exact same aspects, except instead of restricting the velocity of the ball with his hands, Tim increased it. The fact remains that McInnis shot the ball from behind the arc, Tim managed to get a touch on it in the air, but it still went in.

Three points.

[Kori Ellis]

The rule about touching the rim is insubstantial in this instance because goaltending was not the case. The shot was a completed field goal.

I think most people on the board thought it was called a goaltend.

Anyway ..

So even if the shot was 10 feet short and it bounced off a player's stomach and into the hoop it would still count as a three-pointer?

[MosesGuthrie]

Hey, we can use that play as an alternative to 4-down! :lol

[Solid D]

The rule about touching the rim is insubstantial in this instance because goaltending was not the case. The shot was a completed field goal.

Say a player shoots a jumper a little strong, but it gets grazed by a defender on the way up, thereby restricting its velocity a little bit and causing that shot to go in the basket. The shooter still gets credit for that shot, regardless of the shotblocker getting a slight touch on the ball. It's not THAT uncommon in basketball; lord knows I've gotten my hands on plenty of shots before and still watched it go in.

This case has the exact same aspects, except instead of restricting the velocity of the ball with his hands, Tim increased it. The fact remains that McInnis shot the ball from behind the arc, Tim managed to get a touch on it in the air, but it still went in.

Three points.

This makes sense, DEX, and I agree with you but the NBA may have their own rule & interpretation.

[Dex]

You're probably right, and I'm not totally sure that they DIDN'T rule it as a goaltend on the floor.

In my eyes, though, I see that as the simplest and most logical conclusion. :king

And yes, Kori, I suppose if, say, Manu shot the ball from halfcourt and it bounced off of Steve Nash's head and into the basket, it would be 3 points. :lol Nash wouldn't even get a dime.

[Kori Ellis]

Just so you know, on the Pop Show, Pop just said they talked to the refs after the game and it was ruled a 3 because it was a goaltend. He said that if it was below the rim, then it should have been ruled a 2 -- a tip in. But the refs thought it might nick the rim, so they called it a 3 and a goaltend.

So according to Pop (and the refs) FearDaFro and Dex were wrong with their interpretations of the rule.

[Kori Ellis]

Pop also said that when he reviewed the tape today, it obviously wouldn't have even come close to nicking the rim.

[Jimcs50]

Just so you know, on the Pop Show, Pop just said they talked to the refs after the game and it was ruled a 3 because it was a goaltend. He said that if it was below the rim, then it should have been ruled a 2 -- a tip in. But the refs thought it might nick the rim, so they called it a 3 and a goaltend.

So according to Pop (and the refs) FearDaFro and Dex were wrong with their interpretations of the rule.


And I was right. :smokin

[Dex]

They're all wrong and I'm still right. :oops

</stubbornness>

*eats crow*

I still think what I said makes better sense. :blah Especially since that ball really didn't seem to have much of a chance of hitting the rim (without Tim's help).

Apparently the refs this season have become used to being wrong. :angel