batum's two

[teoserio]

why this dunk was denied by the referees? the ball was thrown down to the hoop.. then the ball hit the head of batum so falled down again into the bucket.. so why those two points was denied to the blazers?

[mcHAPPY]

why this dunk was denied by the referees? the ball was thrown down to the hoop.. then the ball hit the head of batum so falled down again into the bucket.. so why those two points was denied to the blazers?

I don't agree with the call however I think it would be offensive basket interference. I'm not sure, just guessing, and again I would count that hoop.

[teoserio]

understanble but the "so said" interference was after the bucket so.. did the blazers complaints after this call?

[Mack North]

How in the world was that basket not counted? Does the ball really have to go through the mesh as well in order for it to count? If so, that's a silly rule that should be changed.

[mcHAPPY]

So here is the reason:

Here is your chance to learn a little NBA rules trivia: This did not count due to offensive goaltending — and that’s the right call.

Portland’s Nicolas Batum dunked the ball on Sunday and while it went through the rim the ball did not go through the bottom of the net because it hit his head and bounced back out. He got whistled for offensive goaltending — which is the correct call according to the rulebook. It has to clear the bottom of the net.

I knew this because I have this problem all the time in pickup games at the Y…. okay, I learned it yesterday like the rest of you. And Batum for that matter, who said after the game he was unaware of the rule (in Europe it just has to clear the rim, he said it’s happened to him before).

Hat tip to IamaGM.com for the video.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...et-waived-off/

[Puffer]

Time for a rule change.

[.40 Cal Flakes]

Off of his own head and its offensive interference?! Lol! That's too crazy. Yes it's def time for a rule change.
Thx for the vid teoserio. Missed this one on highlights of the night.

[Soft Euro]

This happens how often? Not enough (1 time in 3 years? which is about 1 in 2.000.000?) to start changing rules. The rule is because of all those shots seemingly going in and out and this is an easy way to deal with that without needing all kind of exceptions or subrules.

[Mack North]

This happens how often? Not enough (1 time in 3 years? which is about 1 in 2.000.000?) to start changing rules. The rule is because of all those shots seemingly going in and out and this is an easy way to deal with that without needing all kind of exceptions or subrules.

Do you really think it takes all that much to change one rule? This could be taken care of in no time at all if they wanted to. They have instant replay to control any controversy anyways.

[Soft Euro]

Do you really think it takes all that much to change one rule? This could be taken care of in no time at all if they wanted to. They have instant replay to control any controversy anyways.

How do you want the new rule to be. And if I'm correct, instant replay can only be used in certain situations.

I have no clue how long a rule change takes, wouldn't be surprised if there is quite a bureaucratic process behind it. Besides I wouldn't change rules for such infrequent phenomena.