koberulz
Two years ago

Goaltending & Interference

We just had a review, in the Brisbane-Melbourne game, for whether Felix committed goaltending by hitting the rim, despite the fact that under no circumstances is hitting the rim a goaltending violation.

We've seen lots of interference calls due to incidental rim hits, or even last night in Adelaide Ogilvy being called for interference due to incidentally brushing the net.

Scott Butler has come out and said these calls are correct, and that contact with the rim is a violation per se.

It isn't. How does the head of the referees not know the rules? How can we hope to get good officials if they're being instructed in a way that is blatantly contrary to the actual rulebook?

Topic #42553 | Report this topic


Anonymous  
Two years ago

What a farce the NBL reffing is. good job highlighting this KR.

Reply #667693 | Report this post


Bulldog  
Two years ago

Did you not read your own post?
31.2.4
Give it another read champ

Reply #667699 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

kobe can you not read? The rule has the answer in it. And yes it is interference. Maybe try properly reading what you just posted.

Reply #667700 | Report this post


Bulldog  
Two years ago

But on the goaltending front the last three games Adelaide played have had goaltends missed by the refs

Reply #667701 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

I can read, yes. You two clearly can't.

Reply #667702 | Report this post


Luuuc  
Two years ago

What's the issue exactly? That a player has committed interference but it has been called goaltending?

Reply #667703 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

"in such a way that, in the judgement of the official, the ball has been prevented to enter the basket."

Reply #667704 | Report this post


Bulldog  
Two years ago

Did the ball go in the basket? Then seems to me like it prevented it.
In the end the ball was on the way down so correct call either way.

Reply #667705 | Report this post


Bulldog  
Two years ago

And the review was more likely to see how long left on the shot clock since there was no reset as the ball didn't hit the ring.

Reply #667706 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

Did the ball go in the basket? Then seems to me like it prevented it.
In the end the ball was on the way down so correct call either way.
1. Sometimes shots miss without being touched.
2. It was called as legal, so if it was on the way down it wasn't the right call.
3. This isn't just about the Felix play. It's been called incorrectly countlessrtimes this year and Butler has specifically said touching the rim is a violation per se.

Reply #667707 | Report this post


Bulldog  
Two years ago

It was a goaltend. Full stop. It wasn't called a goaltend. It was called out of bounds. The review was for shot clock. They can't review a goaltend call or an out of bounds outside the last 2 minutes of the game.

Reply #667709 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

touching the rim is a violation it says so right there in 5 out of the 6 dot points of 31.2.4

Reply #667714 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

so its interference not goaltending but so what the result is the same either way

Reply #667715 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

JFC people, learn to read.

Reply #667717 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

The question was how does the head of the refs not know the rules.

It's simple he along with most refs in the league are just bad at their job. People are bad at their job in all walks of life.

Reply #667723 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

the head of referees knows the rules very well. Kobe can't read. Sometimes refs can't see a deflection on a ring while running or moving and trying to watch 10 players and the ball at game speed.

You guys need to stop this crazy hate of referees. They're the best Oz has. Deal with it,, accept it. Yes they make mistakes. Shock horror.

Move on, get a life.

Reply #667726 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

the head of referees knows the rules very well. Kobe can't read.
I can read just fine. I quoted the bit where it specifically says touching the rim isn't a violation per se. Posters on here are simply asserting that it does say that while referring to the exact bullet point I quoted which specifically says the exact opposite of what they're arguing, and what Scott Butler has argued.

Sometimes refs can't see a deflection on a ring while running or moving and trying to watch 10 players and the ball at game speed.
So you're saying that they didn't see the thing that happened, therefore it's okay to invent a worse thing that didn't happen and call a violation based on a thing they completely made up, and Butler is merely lying about what the rule is because the refs are inventing these calls with such consistency across the league and season that the only alternative is firing everyone for their hallucinations?

You guys need to stop this crazy hate of referees. They're the best Oz has. Deal with it,, accept it. Yes they make mistakes. Shock horror.
The issue is that they're making mistakes only compared to FIBA. The head of officials is telling them to call it the way they're calling it even though it's wrong. This call has been endlessly discussed this season, so there's no excuse for Butler to not have double-checked the actual rule instead of having the refs call it incorrectly.

Errors at game speed are fine. Referees applying the wrong rule is bad. The referees being forced to apply the wrong rule is inexcusable.

Reply #667729 | Report this post


UseTaHoop  
Two years ago

"A player causes the ring to vibrate or grasps the basket... judgement of the official... ball has been prevented to enter... or caused to enter the basket."

Short of installing vibration detection on every ring, it's up to the refs to judge it. Even then, the “possibility” of a basket is a judgement call too.

Slapping the ring, grabbing the net, holding onto the ring etc etc, can impact the result of the shot. If the ref judges that it has altered the result of the shot, it’s a violation.

So any contact with ring, net or backboard can be interference if the ref judges that it altered the outcome of the shot. Players can’t interfere with the result of a shot this way.

For NBL level games, there must be some ruling that the video can be reviewed under certain conditions to assist the refs in their judgement.

Reply #667730 | Report this post


UseTaHoop  
Two years ago

Identifying an individual and accusing them of "merely lying about what the rule is" is a bit marginal.

Best to agree to disagree on interpretation of individual calls: the judgement of whether or not a player's action altered the result of a shot in this way.

Peace be with you all.

Reply #667731 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

Dazz would have sorted this out to the satisfaction of all parties. I miss that guy.

Reply #667733 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

The replay of this game is about to start on Fox. When was the review?

Reply #667738 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

Short of installing vibration detection on every ring, it's up to the refs to judge it. Even then, the "possibility" of a basket is a judgement call too.

Slapping the ring, grabbing the net, holding onto the ring etc etc, can impact the result of the shot. If the ref judges that it has altered the result of the shot, it's a violation.
Good thing we haven't had two separate interference calls for merely brushing against the net just this weekend, then.

It's also been called in instances where the rim contact has been a part of the follow-through, so the ball is out of the cylinder and moving away from the ring.

Butler has also specifically communicated that any contact with the rim is a violation.

Identifying an individual and accusing them of "merely lying about what the rule is" is a bit marginal.
That was a hypothetical scenario that would be necessary for the anon's post to be accurate.

Dazz would have sorted this out to the satisfaction of all parties. I miss that guy.
I'm fairly sure he's still posting here, just under a different name.

The replay of this game is about to start on Fox. When was the review?
Two and a half minutes remaining, first quarter.

Reply #667740 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

The review was for the shot clock. The outside referees believed the ball hit the ring and the clock was incorrectly not reset to 14 sec so they reset it. As this is an error or malfunction of the shot clock it can be reviewed. Hence on review it was reset back to 4 because the ball never hit the ring.

Reply #667744 | Report this post


paul  
Two years ago

Yes, making contact with the basket, backboard or rim while the ball is in contact with the rim is a goal tend as it may impact the ball's path and therefore have prevented the ball from going in.

Secondly, the review was to see if the ball hit the rim so they could get the shot clock correct. Thanks for the entertainment though KR.

Reply #667749 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

But when the ball isn't in contact with the rim, that rule doesn't apply. The refs are applying it anyway.

Reply #667752 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

Do we have video of said incidents?

Reply #667757 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

No because as a couple of people have pointed out this whole thread is based on an incorrect assumption by koberulz

Reply #667759 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

No, no it isn't. This has been happening since round one.

Reply #667765 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

Just be cool to hear Kobe say he was wrong for the reason they reviewed the play. Never "assume" as they say

Reply #667769 | Report this post


koberulz  
Two years ago

I didn't assume, I made the mistake of believing the commentary.

Reply #667770 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

"We just had a review, in the Brisbane-Melbourne game, for whether Felix committed goaltending by hitting the rim, despite the fact that under no circumstances is hitting the rim a goaltending violation."

That is not what the review was for since the rim was clearly hit but no points were awarded.

Reply #667771 | Report this post


UseTaHoop  
Two years ago

This thread has included:
Quoting rules;
Interpreting rules;
Conciliation;
Acknowledging that others have different interpretations of same events;
Respectful disagreement over calls;
Citing video evidence;
Acknowledgement of refs' "judgement"

Still no consensus.

We need a binding legal decision or UN mediation. Or...

We could agree that some calls are hard to judge, and not everyone will be happy with what they get all the time. Sounds like a metaphor for life. Get on with it.


Reply #667835 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Two years ago

A shot was blocked out of bounds. The offensive team got the ball back from the sidelines. It was a pretty big deal.

Reply #667837 | Report this post




 

Reply to this topic

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Europa 62

Rules:You must read the Terms of Use. No spam, no offensive material, no sniping at other clubs, no 'who cares?'-type comments, no naming or bashing under 18 players. Learn how to embed YouTube videos or tweets

Please proof-read your post before submitting as you will not be able to edit it afterwards.



Close ads
PickStar - The best place to book sports stars
Dunk.com.au - Custom basketball uniforms
Punch - insightful time tracking

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



Invoicing clients? Stay productive with Punch, the insightful time tracker that earns you more.

Special offer: $30/month Pay $100 for lifetime access. Sign up now!

.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 9:58 pm, Tue 2 Jun 2020 | Posts: 834,721 | Last 7 days: 748