Will someone smarter than me please explain

[Ragman2000]

Chewie's 2-shots in the 2nd half when he was fouled going up and the ball went in the basket.

I cannot fathom any scenario where that is 2-shots and the basket not counting. A little help please?

 

[dollarbill44]

One of them was an offensive goaltend. I don't recall the other one. Maybe the foul was before the shot?

 

[Brooky03]

When he was undercut at the rim? It was/would have been basket interference. Also, I'm pretty sure the ball didn't go in.

 

[MikeDamone]

When he was undercut at the rim? It was/would have been basket interference. Also, I'm pretty sure the ball didn't go in.

The ball did go in when he was undercut. However somehow they waived off the basket and gave him 2 shots. 2 shots before the 10th foul means player was in the act of shooting so the only way the basket doesn't count is if the ruled offensive goaltending after the foul/

 

[tbonezone]

strange play there . defender was watching the driver and didn't know chukwu was even behind him. and the foul occurs after the goaltending. i'd say it was more PC initiating the contact after a whistle . got lucky.

 

[jgeorge322]

my only possible thought is a player goes up to dunk a ball he does not yet possess, gets fouled in the process, but then commits a goaltend shortly thereafter negating the bucket. Although, i dont think thats what occurred. I was stumped on this as well.

 

[Millhouse]

Chewie's 2-shots in the 2nd half when he was fouled going up and the ball went in the basket.

I cannot fathom any scenario where that is 2-shots and the basket not counting. A little help please?

chukwu is always hurt anyway, he makes shots when he's undercut, can someone smarter than me explain why one of our players doesn't undercut him

 

[upperdeck]

here is my question.. you can only goal tend a shot attempt not a pass.. it was clearly a pass not a shot.

 

[tbonezone]

not true. you can goaltend on an alley oops pass. happened many times with sherm and seikaly .

 

[rrlbees]

It was plain and simple a BS call that has no explanation. If it was goaltending it would have been duke ball. If the foul was before the goaltend it would have been 1-1, not 2 shots. Giving him 2 shots means he was in the act of shooting. The ball went in.

I believe the OP, like I, is talking about the pass from Howard. Not the play where Chewy was undercut.

 

[AZOrange]

It was plain and simple a BS call that has no explanation. If it was goaltending it would have been duke ball. If the foul was before the goaltend it would have been 1-1, not 2 shots. Giving him 2 shots means he was in the act of shooting. The ball went in.

I believe the OP is talking about the pass from Howard. Not the play where Chewy was undercut.

? The ball did not go in on the play that chewy was under cut

 

[rrlbees]

? The ball did not go in on the play that chewy was under cut

And my last sentence says that’s not the play I was talking about nor the play the OP is talking about I believe. The unexplainable call was the pass from Howard that looked to be in the cylinder but on replay it wasn’t. Ref disallowed the basket but gave him 2 shots.

 

[chugg21]

I thought the goaltend was a bad call too. The replays seemed to show that the ball had just passed over the cylinder or at least that's what I was seeing through my biased view.

 

[dollarbill44]

I thought the goaltend was a bad call too. The replays seemed to show that the ball had just passed over the cylinder or at least that's what I was seeing through my biased view.

I thought it could have gone either way, so I'm not going to beat up the refs for that one. But, I don't think I've ever seen a shooting foul - offensive goaltend on the shooter. It was definitely a strange play.

 

[Brooky03]

Whether or not the undercut play is the one OP is referencing, here's my take on why the refs got it right:

You can be in the process of shooting while going up for a putback dunk/layup. We see this all the time with alley-oops. Same idea applies; you don't have to possess the ball to be shooting. So, getting fouled while attempting a putback is a shooting foul, even before you have the ball, imo.

The shooting foul is first and foremost. It cannot be changed by a subsequent event.

The basket interference occurred after the foul and only negated the chance for an and-1. The basket interference call can't retroactively negate the fact that he was shooting.

Whether or not the tip went in is inconsequential, unless you believe the ball was outside the cylinder when he touched it. I'm still mildly confident the ball did not go in, though. That's my recollection.

The only other play I remember remotely close to this was an alley-oop from Frank to Chukwu late in the 2nd half (or OT?) that he caught just outside the cylinder and finished. I don't remember any whistle for a foul or goaltend on that one. I either missed that whistle and subsequent couple minutes or we're talking about a play I never saw, if we're not taking about the undercut play.

 

[Fly Rodder]

The shooting foul is first and foremost. It cannot be changed by a subsequent event.

Then it should have been a 1-1.

 

[Brooky03]

Then it should have been a 1-1.

Shooting foul

 

[upperdeck]

not true. you can goaltend on an alley oops pass. happened many times with sherm and seikaly .

yes you can but its not automatic, if its a shot and in the cylinder you cant touch it, but if its a pass you can if the ref decides it wasnt going to go in..

 

[malpearl31]

Whether or not the undercut play is the one OP is referencing, here's my take on why the refs got it right:

You can be in the process of shooting while going up for a putback dunk/layup. We see this all the time with alley-oops. Same idea applies; you don't have to possess the ball to be shooting. So, getting fouled while attempting a putback is a shooting foul, even before you have the ball, imo.

The shooting foul is first and foremost. It cannot be changed by a subsequent event.

The basket interference occurred after the foul and only negated the chance for an and-1. The basket interference call can't retroactively negate the fact that he was shooting.

Whether or not the tip went in is inconsequential, unless you believe the ball was outside the cylinder when he touched it. I'm still mildly confident the ball did not go in, though. That's my recollection.

The only other play I remember remotely close to this was an alley-oop from Frank to Chukwu late in the 2nd half (or OT?) that he caught just outside the cylinder and finished. I don't remember any whistle for a foul or goaltend on that one. I either missed that whistle and subsequent couple minutes or we're talking about a play I never saw, if we're not taking about the undercut play.

I agree with your analysis - I thought they ruled that Paschal was in the act of shooting when he was fouled - but the resulting basket itself could not be counted because the ball was deemed to be in the cylinder. So they gave him two free throws, which is the correct ruling for someone fouled in the act of shooting whenever the field goal attempt is not made.

And I think there was a 2nd instance of this (in the OT, maybe?) where they ruled that Paschal was undercut prior to his FG attempt - which then made it a 1-and-1. That attempt did not go in if I remember correctly.

Tell you what, I'll take one for the Team and re-watch the entire game tonight when I get home from work. (I might even re-watch it twice!)

 

[rrlbees]

Whether or not the undercut play is the one OP is referencing, here's my take on why the refs got it right:

You can be in the process of shooting while going up for a putback dunk/layup. We see this all the time with alley-oops. Same idea applies; you don't have to possess the ball to be shooting. So, getting fouled while attempting a putback is a shooting foul, even before you have the ball, imo.

The shooting foul is first and foremost. It cannot be changed by a subsequent event.

The basket interference occurred after the foul and only negated the chance for an and-1. The basket interference call can't retroactively negate the fact that he was shooting.

Whether or not the tip went in is inconsequential, unless you believe the ball was outside the cylinder when he touched it. I'm still mildly confident the ball did not go in, though. That's my recollection.

The only other play I remember remotely close to this was an alley-oop from Frank to Chukwu late in the 2nd half (or OT?) that he caught just outside the cylinder and finished. I don't remember any whistle for a foul or goaltend on that one. I either missed that whistle and subsequent couple minutes or we're talking about a play I never saw, if we're not taking about the undercut play.

I don’t buy the act of shooting thing when you don’t have the ball.

 

[CusefanATL]

One of them was an offensive goaltend. I don't recall the other one. Maybe the foul was before the shot?

ironically both were offensive goaltends. 1 was a good call. 1 was iffy.

 

[CusefanATL]

here is my question.. you can only goal tend a shot attempt not a pass.. it was clearly a pass not a shot.

yes you can. same way you can "accidentally" make a pass. MCW did it once. steph also did it on an in bounds play so it didnt count. now that would have been funny if that was called a goaltend on something that could not even count.

 

[Brooky03]

I don’t buy the act of shooting thing when you don’t have the ball.

Don't guys going up to finish alley-oops go to the line in most cases when they're fouled? They rarely have the ball in their hand when the contact occurs.

If the written rules require possession of the ball to be considered in the act of shooting, so be it. Chewy getting 2 shots would be the wrong decision, but then I'd argue refs get alley-oop body contact fouls wrong most of the time.

 

[tbonezone]

rewatching the first play i'd say it definitely was a pass and it did go in. defender was behind chukwu and clearly beat. not sure why they didn't count that hoop. second one as i said was a definite goaltend.

 

[malpearl31]

Rewatched the game (which I highly recommend, by the way), and traded emails with an NBA ref I know. The first time this happened - with 12:47 to play in the 2nd half - they disallowed the basket, but awarded Chukwu two free throws. My referee friend says that was an incorrect call. He says that either the basket interference had to have happened before the common foul (which negates the foul, because the play is dead), or the foul had to have occurred before the BI (which ends the play before Chukwu actually possessed the ball).

He further clarified that in order for a foul to be judged a shooting foul, the player must have control of the ball. If a player is fouled while attempting a tip in, that should be judged a loose ball foul - side out or 1-and-1 free throws - definitely not two FTs. However, if the tipped ball goes in, the basket counts (because any live ball from the playing court that goes in shall be scored) and then the fouled player gets one FT attempt.

On any alley-oop play where the player gets fouled before the ball gets to his hands (or if the player’s arms get hit so that he is never able to fully control the ball), that should be judged a non-shooting foul - and that was how the referees called it with just over a minute to play in the OT (when Chukwu made both ends of the 1-and-1. Whether or not Paschal committed offensive basket interference after the foul (which I think he did) is irrelevant, because the play was dead as soon as the Duke player undercut him on the play.

TL;DR: We got one “free” point with 12:47 to play in the 2nd half. Them’s the breaks, Duke... too bad!

(Now I’m gonna rewatch it just one more time... just to make sure... )