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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

JFC people, learn to read.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.