Reply With Quote
I admit I only read half of this ridiculously banal post, but Im wondering,
Is it a goaltend if someone stuffs a shot? I mean, they are still in the act of shooting
(For the record, this isn't a discussion about why the Spurs lost. They lost because they didn't score as many points as the Suns. End of story. But it turned into a rules debate. And since so many of us seem to have nothing better to do than debate crap, why should this be any different?)
Several people commented that Amare first touched the ball before it was in the cylinder. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The fact is, it really doesn't matter.
Rule 4
Section XI-Field Goal Attempt
A field goal attempt is a player's attempt to shoot the ball into his basket for a field goal. The act of shooting starts when, in the official's judgment, the player has started his shooting motion and continues until the shooting motion ceases and he returns to a normal floor position. It is not essential that the ball leave the shooter's hand.
Tim was in the act of shooting, obviously. He was still in the act of shooting, even after Amare's hand contacted the ball. Amare clearly wound up in contact with the ball while it was in the cylinder. (His entire hand was over the basket, and his wrist was resting on the rim.) The ball clearly "had a chance" to go through the rim. That satisfies all the conditions of the goaltend rule.
No player can make contact with the ball while it is in the cylinder. The ONLY exception is the one that allowed the dunk shot. The rules don't say anything about WHY the player touched the ball inside the cylinder. They don't say anything about a player blocking a shot.
Suppose Amare had blocked the shot outside the cylinder, and it came out of Tim's hands. But then Tim got a handle on it again, while it was in the cylinder, and threw it down. Tim's hand would not have been "legally in contact" with the ball within the cylinder. It would have been offensive interference (goaltending) against Tim, and the goal would not have counted.
The goaltending rule states that the offensive player can be "legally in contact" with the ball within the cylinder - that is to allow for the dunk shot. (Otherwise, a dunk would always be offensive interference.) But there is no condition where a defensive player can be "legally in contact" with the ball within the cylinder. It's one of the least subjective rules in basketball. There was a goaltending violation at the end of tonight's game, whether it got called or not.
Last edited by GSH; 05-31-2005 at 02:02 AM.
I admit I only read half of this ridiculously banal post, but Im wondering,
Is it a goaltend if someone stuffs a shot? I mean, they are still in the act of shooting
Maybe it is banal, DingleBarry. It's a game we all seem to like. A lot of people didn't seem to understand the rule. I tried to help explain it.
There was a time that a dunk was illegal in the NBA. According to the rules at that time, it was offensive goaltending - because NO ONE could touch the ball inside the cylinder. A lot of people objected to making the dunk legal, because they said it wasn't the way basketball should be played. (I still remember that, privately, a lot of their objections were based on race. As ignorant as it sounds, they didn't want to allow the dunk because they thought that was the way... [Blacks] played.) They had to make a special exception to the rule to allow the dunk.
They did not make any exception that allowed a defensive player to put his hand over the rim to block a shot from going in - no matter if it was a jump shot or a dunk.
Sorry for my banal posts. But at least you understand the rule better now.
Sorry fella, but the contact with the ball was initiated outside of the cylinder.
Yes, it's true that Duncan's momentum carried Amare's wrist over the cylinder, but what starts out as a clean block, CANNOT end up as goal-tending.
Own3d
Don't mean to call you a dip , but exercising your reading abilities would indicate your question has been answered for you.I admit I only read half of this ridiculously banal post, but Im wondering,
Is it a goaltend if someone stuffs a shot? I mean, they are still in the act of shooting
Another one:
I don't expect much by way of reading comprehension in sports forums, but can you at least support your contention the initial rules interpretation, given by the thread-starter, is false?Yes, it's true that Duncan's momentum carried Amare's wrist over the cylinder, but what starts out as a clean block, CANNOT end up as goal-tending.
The whole claim the this thread starter is that Amare blocked the shot illegelly because Amare's hand was over the cylinder for the block.
It didn't start that way, therefore the claim isn't entirely true.
I concede that Duncan's momentum forced Amare hand over the rim, but the initial contact took place outside of the cylinder, therefore by his provided rule, is not a goal-tending.
The rule is ambiguous. Without a clearly stated definition, what starts out as a clean block cannot end up as goal-tending.
I detect a strained understanding of the word 'ambiguous.'The rule is ambiguous. Without a clearly stated definition, what starts out as a clean block cannot end up as goal-tending.
Really, that's funny..."doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness. ..capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways"
Solly, Cholly, but I finished school long ago and do not need a lecture in vocabulary, nor how to determine whether or not a rule is clearly stated or if it's able to be interepretated in different ways.
Fact is, his claim is disproven and while I have no rule to claim "clean block" he no longer has any rule to claim "goal-tending".
Bzzzt! Again, with some laughter. You point out, correctly, the play was ambiguous in relation to the rules. Then you claim it was clearly not a goaltending call. If it's ambiguous, how can you claim an outcome? Why in the world would you give the benefit of the doubt to the defensive player?Really, that's funny..."doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness. ..capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways"
Solly, Cholly, but I finished school long ago and do not need a lecture in vocabulary, nor how to determine whether or not a rule is clearly stated or if it's able to be interepretated in different ways.
Read again the first post. Find it a perfectly valid reading of the rules.
Fact is, chum, you've disproven nothing. But, wait... Ah, yes, I see my well-educated friend is a Suns fan. Makes perfect sense now. Carry on!
The rule is ambiguous, not the play.
As for the perfectly valid reading of the rules, Solid D posted the true meaning of "own basket"...that disproves everything in question.
Lastly, From that picture that I posted, where do you see a goal-tending?
That's right, you can't...
If you are going to call fandom into question, well then you'd best look in the mirror.
The play started as a clean block and by no known or understood rule turned into a goal-tending.
You can quit pretending to be the message board Czar, because it's really silly. You went from asking for proof, to questioning my choice of vocabulary, to saying I contradicted myself to saying I have a clear agenda...
Please...
Now I can see that was a clean block. The ball was NOT in the cylinder
I don't think it even matters if the ball is above the cylder. If the ball is still in the offensive players hand, as it is Duncans the defensive man still has a right to play the ball. The block is good, credit Amare. Just make sure he knows the next time Duncan is going to stuff both the ball and Amare completley through the bottom of the net!
I can't beleive people are whining about that play. That was simply a monster block by Amare. If your a true basketball fan, you give credit where credit is due. I'm a basketball fan first...a Spurs fan second. That block was awesome.
GSH, I thought you were done with this last night. Give it up already. That pic shows it wasn't a goaltend, no matter what the rule says. The ball was not above the cylinder, Amare made a tremendous block, end of story.
Yeah...that was a damn good block...
Sweet block.
GSH, give it up.
The sportscasters are always saying that it's about whether the ball was on the downside of the arc toward the basket - and clearly, it was. So by the way the rules have been applied up until now, it should have been goaltending. But, it was the final minute of the 4th, in an elimination game that would keep the series from going to 5 games, so of course it's not going to get called.
It was a great block. Props to the Suns.
I am a Spurs fan first, second and third. It was a great play.
Goal tend
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
