Ep.16 | 10 Basketball Rules Questions That Only Experts Will Get Right
Play • 22 min

show where we take National Federation of High School Rules. We lift them off the printed page and breathe life into them. We simplify, clarify, amplify and give them back to you in a form you could take with you on to the basketball court. Greetings again everybody, my name is Greg Austin without abetterofficial.com. I've been a high school basketball official for over a decade, and I consider myself to be a Basketball Rules Expert. This show is about helping you become a Basketball Rules Expert, as well. as a reminder, this video is focusing exclusively on National Federation of High School basketball rules. Before we get started with today's episode I have to give a shout out to show supporters.


• Tracy Hounsom

• Janice Brown

• Darwin Sanada (S)

• Paul Sullivan (S)


Much appreciated and much love. If you want to be a supporter of the show, you can always buy us a coffee, there's a link in the show notes below.


Today, we're going to have another lightning round episode. Ten quick questions with quick answers. Down and dirty, with the correct answers to the play scenarios. Remember though to stick around. play number 10 is the toughest in the group. Let's get started with our very first play scenario,


Last Second Shot Bounces In!


With only a few seconds left on the clock, A1 attempts a try from the backcourt, which lands far short. the ball bounces near the free throw line and up towards the basket. The horn sounds, and then the ball goes through the basket. The officials score the goal, but rule it to be a 2-point goal.

Were the officials correct? Yes or No?


A player in the backcourt dribbling the ball, and knows the clock is winding down. They throw the ball towards the basket. The ball though, ends up far short of the basket. They had thrown it high enough that it bounced in the lane area. It then bounced up towards the basket and goes in the basket just after the horn sounds.


Do we score the goal or not? What do we need to know here?


We need to know when a try for goal ends.

We need to know when a ball becomes dead.


Those two components are really important here.


A try for goal ends when:

the goal is successful,

when it is obvious that it will not be successful.

When a try contacts the floor, or

when the ball becomes dead.


Those are the four ways of trying that one of those things happen. In this situation, now we know that when a try is in flight and time expires, the ball is still live. But when it is no longer a try for goal. The try has ended, then the ball becomes dead. So on our play here. The ball was live in the air. The ball bounces, the try has ended. And the horn sounds before the ball enters the basket. The ball has become dead because it was no longer a try. In this instance, no goal should have been scored. Were the officials Correct? No. No, they were not.


B1 is guarding A1. As A1 drives to the basket. Teammate B2 shoves B1 into A1. The officials, rule of pushing foul on B2, Were the officials correct? Yes or No?


There's no associative property in basketball. The player who offends here on this play is the player who had the illegal contact. Even though that was through no fault of their own right. Their teammates shoves them into the opponent. The action of the shove are not penalized. The illegal contact by B1 is penalized. So in this play, Were the officials Correct? No, no, they were not


Player runs Out-of-bounds around a screen


Team A has the ball in the frontcourt, A2 and A3, set a screen near the endline. A1 runs out of bounds around the screening teammates and back onto the court and receives a pass on the other side. The officials rule a Player Technical Foul on A1.

Were the officials correct? Yes or No?


So we have a player leaves the court and goes around the screen, in an effort to lose the defensive player reemergence on the other side, and catches the ball, pass by a teammate, this sounds really familiar. If we had this same play, except A1 was a thrower and delayed and was off the court released a throw-in pass. Then, use the same screen in the same fashion failed to return to the court but instead went out of bounds. And then returned to the record, and received the pass. that is a player technical foul by rule. But during play. When a player who's on the court leaves the court for an unauthorized reason by rule. They have committed a violation. And that is what should have been ruled, I believe in far gone times. This action was considered a player technical foul. No officials called it. So the nfhs said, let's just make it a violation so that it's penalized more frequently. And so that's what we have here, violation from leaving the court for an unauthorized reason on A1. So in this instance Were the officials Correct? No, no, they weren't


3 Tenths of a Second Catch and Shoot Play


Team A as a throw-in with only 3 tenths of a second showing on the clock. In one smooth motion, A1 catches the throw-in pass and quickly releases a try for goal prior to the horn sounding. The officials rule that no goal is scored, Were the officials correct? Yes or No?


By rule, in National Federation of High School Rules. If there was a throw-in with point three or less on the clock. A player on the court may not catch the ball and release a try. By rule, no goal can be scored time has expired. And ibhs says, look, human beings are involved here. There's three tenths of a second based timer cannot properly, start the clock. In this limited time for. So they say fine luck if we get 2.3, the player cannot physically catch and release the ball in three tenths of a second. So by rule. If they do catch the ball, time has expired. So that's the rule. In this case the officials role known role or the officials correct? yes, yes they were


Defender contacts ball after it hits backboard


A1 drives and lays the ball off the backboard of the two slaps just after it contacts the backboard. While the ball is still on the way up. The officials rule a goaltending violation, since the ball was contacted after it contacted the backboard. Were officials correct? Yes or No?


or we have a player drives to the basket and lays the ball off the glass. After they do, but while the ball is still on this upward trajectory that the mass contacts the basketball. They have contacted the basketball after it touched a backboard, but is still on its way. What's our problem here. Other levels. so appreciate your watch NCAA Mens. We watch the NBA announcers. I say why you can't touch that after it's touched the backboard of the National Federation of High School has no bearing on the determination. Colton layer can legally contact the ball after it has contacted the backboard, as long as it does not meet the requirements of goaltending violation, which would be all having a chance to go in on its downward flight, those components have to be in place. So in this instance Were the officials Correct? No, no, they were not


Defender Causes Backboard to MOVE!


A1 drives and releases a try. B1 in an attempt to block the shot slaps the backboard forcibly causing it. And the basket to oscillate at once, try rolls off the still moving basket. The officials rule is a goaltending violation. For the officials correct? Yes or No?


A misunderstood rule in high school basketball player goes to the basket lays the ball up the defense, in an attempt to block the shot swings and contacts the backboard forcibly, what it does is it causes the blackboard to momentarily oscillate. And along with it, the basket. Right, the basket could move as a result of this action, the ball in this case rolls off of that still moving basket.


The officials rule goaltending biolage commonly ruled that at the high school level, but the rules do not support that. The rules of high school basketball, allow a player to contact the backboard. As long as in the officials judgment. It was an attempt to block the shot. If it's an attempt to block the shot. The resulting action by the backboard, and whether or not the ball goes in, and whether they moving backboard affected the ball going in. None of those matter. It is a legal play. And the result of the play will just be the result of the play. Okay, misunderstood rule. I believe this rule may be different at the NCAA Men's level. Possibly the NBA level. I do not know those answers, but I do know this play is legal by rule at the high school level. So, in this instance Were the officials Correct? No, no, they were not


Ring grasped with ball in the cylinder


With several players in the ln area. A1 releases a try for goal. B1 in an attempt to block the shot gets off balance in an effort to protect himself B1 grasps and pulls down the ring, while the ball is in the air above the ring in the cylinder. The ring returns to its normal position, just before the ball contacts in the try is unsuccessful. The officials rule this a basket interference violation, Were the officials correct? Yes or No?


please go into the basket defensive player is congested in the in the lane area, the defensive player. In an effort to block the shot B1 becomes off balance, and is at risk of falling hard to the floor. B1 reaches up and grabs the ring in an effort to protect themselves. In doing so, B1 depresses the ring. They then release the ring, it returns to its normal position.


The ring was contacted while the ball was in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. So the officials rule, a basket interference violation, because the player was contacting or because the player had depressed the ring. While the ball was in the cylinder. That's what we have with the officials correct? Well, let's take a look. First of all, is the action by the defender legal? and off balance defender in the air in the lane area congested players around them, are they allowed to grasp the ring in that instance. Yes, yes they are. Players are allowed to protect themselves. In this instance, are they allowed to depress the ring as a result. Yes, potentially yes if they are at risk, and their weight pulls the ring and breaks the in their weight pulls the ring down. That is a legal play by rule, in and of itself. Now, the ball is suspended in the imaginary cylinder above the basket, when the ball is in the imaginary cylinder are players allowed to contact the ring by rule. Yes, yes they are legal. If the ball was on the ring, they cannot contact the basket. If the ball is in the imaginary cylinder. They cannot contact the ball, but they can contact the ring. While the ball is not on or in the basket, but is instead of above in the imaginary cylinder. So in this instance the officials ruled a basket interference violation, Were the officials Correct? Nope. No, they were not .


Net and ring contacted with ball in the cylinder


B1 attempts to block a layup by A1. In doing so, B1 contacts the ring and the net. While the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. The trial is unsuccessful. The officials rule this a basket interference violation, Were the officials correct? Yes or No?


similar play basket interference is ruled, we have a player contacting the ring and the net. While the ball is in the imaginary cylinder. But as we covered in the last play, that's legal. Right. The ball is in the cylinder. They cannot touch the ball while it's in the cylinder. They cannot touch the ball, while the ball is in on the basket. If the ball was on the ring, the defensive player is not allowed to contact the ball when the ball is on, or in the basket, the defensive players not allowed to contact the basket.


But when the ball is in the imaginary cylinder and not on the basket. The player, the defensive player, any player is allowed to contact the basket. The way I like to think of it, explain it is think of a Bongo drummer you know they're like a player could do the Bongo motion on the ring player can can rat a tat a tat with their hands on the ring, while a ball is in flight, no rule has been broken. While the ball is in the cylinder rat a tat a tat no rule has been broken, that's legal but it's legal to contact the ring while the ball is in the cylinder, but not on or in the basket. So in this instance the officials ruled is a basket interference violation, Were the officials Correct? No, no, they weren't.


Simultaneous Free-Throw Violation?


during A1's free throw attempt B1 violates by having a foot on the lane line. A1's free throw misses the basket entirely. The officials rule this a simultaneous free throw violation, Were the officials correct? Yes or No?


B1 has a foot on the lane line prior to the release of the throw by A1. The official would signal a delayed lane violation with an extended arm. Then, A1 the thrower shoots an airball. What happens next? We have a simultaneous violation by rule.


If a player from the opposing team violates, and the thrower violates, we have a simultaneous violation by rule. Now, if we have first have a delayed violation by the defense, and the thrower violates. NFHS says consider whether the actions of the player who violated cause the thrower to violate. And if so, disconsertion would be ruled and A1's free throw failing to contact the ring would not be considered. But in this instance, it's pretty obvious a player with a foot on a line is not going to cause the thrower to be distracted.


Imagine other scenarios. We had a clip from a play last year, a couple years ago, where a player gets off balance. In an effort to control herself from falling into the lane she waves her arms wildly. But ultimately crashes to the floor in the lane area. could that be distracting now that's a violation, that is a delayed violation on that player right the throwers there could they're maybe they're cracking up or. It's pretty funny scenario. Is the thrower potentially distracted by that action? Yes, and we have to consider that if we consider that they were distracted by that violation. We are going to ignore their subsequent violation, either shooting an air ball on the free throw or stepping on the free throw line themselves. Those would be ignored and we only penalize the defensive violation. The shooter would get a substitute free throw. But in this instance, that was not the case. The defensive team violated. In this in a discreet fashion offense the thrower violated. That would have been a simultaneous violation. So in this instance the officials ruled a simultaneous free throw violation. Were the officials correct? Yes. Yes they were.


Backcourt - Ball batted back


A1, after dribbling in the backcourt, throws a pass towards A2 in the frontcourt. B2 who's in the frontcourt forcefully bats the past back towards the backcourt. A1 catches the ball in the backcourt. The officials rule a backcourt violation on Team A Were the officials correct? Yes or No?


Backcourt play. Sounds a little bit familiar but backcourt play. A player is dribbling in the backcourt. we have team control on the court. The player throws the ball to a teammate in the frontcourt but a defensive player bats the ball. It goes back towards A1 who's still in the backcourt and catches the ball. The officials rule a backcourt violation. One of the reasons this sounds familiar, is that many years ago there was a 'famous' National Federation of High School Rules interpretation. The ruling said that his play is a backcourt violation! Problem is, it was an erroneous interpretation. It caused a lot of confusion, and the resulting correction a couple of years ago, also caused a lot of confusion. At the end of the day, this is a legal play. The team had team control on the court, but they were not the last to touch in the frontcourt. The defense was the last to touch in the frontcourt. The player catching the ball in the backcourt is legal. So in this instance the officials rule a backcourt violation. Were the officials correct? No, no, they were not.


Thanks for joining us today on Basketball Rules Expert. If you find value with the content. Do us a favor, hit the like button down below. It helps us with the YouTube algorithm gets the video out to more basketball officials. If you have yet to go ahead and hit subscribe, and the ‘Notify’ Bell. Also, share the video content with any other basketball officials who you think could find value as well so we can all get better together. We cannot thank enough, our show supporters:


• Tracy Hounsom

• Janice Brown

• Darwin Sanada (S)

• Paul Sullivan (S)


Much appreciated and much love.


If you want to be a supporter of the show, you can always buy us a coffee. As always we have created a quiz, it will just be the 10 questions we've covered. We do have more video content for you here. There's a link to our previous lightning round episode here and another video as well. Make your choice. Choose wisely. And we'll see you in the very next video. Take care.

More episodes
Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu