Dex explained it in one post:
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I am pretty sure it was called a tip in.
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.
I think most people on the board thought it was called a goaltend.The rule about touching the rim is insubstantial in this instance because goaltending was not the case. The shot was a completed field goal.
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?
Hey, we can use that play as an alternative to 4-down!
This makes sense, DEX, and I agree with you but the NBA may have their own rule & interpretation.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Kori Ellis; 03-01-2005 at 05:51 PM.
Pop also said that when he reviewed the tape today, it obviously wouldn't have even come close to nicking the rim.
And I was right.
They're all wrong and I'm still right.
</stubbornness>
*eats crow*
I still think what I said makes better sense.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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
