Thanks for conceding the rule as written applies.

fyp

Booker didn't even play well tonight. They are just a really well constructed team with no weak links.

+ MONTE GOAT

In fact, the section about live/dead balls says this:

Just tired of arguing with someone who is wrong.

“I was trying to create a play where you could score with like three-tenths of a second or something, and I just thought tonight was a good time to do it,” Triano told reporters after the game. “I put it on about two or three days after I took over the job here, and it’s a rule a lot of people don’t know. You cannot goaltend a ball that isn’t going to count, so I told our guys, ‘Shoot the ball in the basket, and all Tyson has to do is touch it on the way down or grab the rim and have it hit your knuckle and go in.’

“I asked the officials when they come and do their clinics and seminars with the coaches. I asked them that 15 years ago when I was in Toronto. I asked them about it, and they had to go back and look at it. I’ve tried to keep it a secret, and it’s not a secret anymore.”

“What’s crazy about that play is that I didn’t know that was the rule. We went over it one day in practice, and I thought coach was crazy,” Suns star Devin Booker said, according to ESPN.com. “I thought it was some overseas rule. [Triano] said he looked it up in the rule book and said if you shoot it from out of bounds and if it’s going in, your team can touch it so it sounds more like a 0.2 or 0.3 seconds left play, but it worked well for us tonight.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports....063336443.html

PokerHero has an ally! I was gonna go to bed but I'm staying up for this. TZ with a pulse

Bro, give it up. GoldenBears spelled it out further for you if you can't read rules.

“With two-tenths left, you’re not allowed to catch it and shoot it. You have to deflect it in,” Triano said. “So I was thinking, ‘How do you deflect it?’ We (the Raptors’ coaching staff) were thinking a lob you can tap in. When some officials came in for a clinic I asked, ‘Can it be goaltending?’ They said, ‘We’ll get back to you on that.’ But they didn’t. So I kept asking, during summer league and different times, ‘Can you goaltend?’ And they finally said, ‘No, a shot that doesn’t count can’t be called a goaltend.’”

Section II—Live Ball

The ball becomes live when:
It is tossed by an official on any jump ball
It is at the disposal of the offensive player for a throw-in
It is placed at the disposal of a free throw shooter


Section III—Ball is Alive

The ball becomes alive when:
It is legally tapped by one of the participants of a jump ball
It is released by the thrower-in
It is released by the free throw shooter on a free throw which will remain in play



Apparently there are three states of being, "live ball," "dead ball" and "ball is alive" lol

so i guess if a guy on the tipoff knocks it all the way to the bucket you could also put that in?

Wrong again. Quote some other stuff so we can laugh more...

Lol that’s literally an ex-NBA head coach who is still coaching and has been in basketball since the 80s.

I am 99% in the place that the website only shows the basic rules and not a bunch of amendments or more fleshed out rules or something.

Like all these other rules like "you need more than 0.3 in order to tip it" or "you need xyz in order to be able to catch and shoot" I also can't find anywhere, but as far as I know those are real rules.

I agree with pokerhero's interpretation that the rules posted on the website do not agree with what the announcers and refs told us.

But since this situation has come up before, been ruled similarly and there was no ensuing uproar, I disagree with pokerhero's assumption that somehow everybody else is wrong and the refs did not understand the rules on the freaking website, especially in a situation where the rules are different than the "normal" rules. The idea that the refs somehow got confused and made up the idea that a rule that applies 99.99999% of the time DOESN'T apply in this one exact situation, and then all agreed that that was correct is preposterous

Who cares about guys who you assert know the rules, but in specific cases like this who can't recite the rules.

how can someone be so adamant about something and so bad at googling

Like I said above, this rule has been in place for 50+ years. Bill Russell did it and they banned it with a subsequent rule.

Did you even read the quotes dude? Actually, I already know the answer lol. You’re wrong. Accept it. No way everyone is wrong and you’re right. Occam’s Razor or something like that.

Lolpokerhero.

Also, the Clippers still suck. But I can understand the frustration when it took 51 years to get to the semifinals.

Also, from the official two-minute report from that other game:

https://official.nba.com/wp-content/...12-26-2017.pdf

Anyways, I’m going to bed. Don’t blow a gasket pokerhero. You’ll still wake up tomorrow.

The case book is clear. I will concede to that.

The Russell rule should apply, but apparently does not.

I think the reffs could have said there was not 100% certainty the ball was not in the cylinder. But the case book makes that irrelevant, so why the 2 minute review?

Perhaps they were reviewing if a Clipper player touched the ball first, which would have put the ball in play satisfying the case book requirement.

I did not hear what the reffs or announcers said afterward. But somebody told me what Jaffe said about the Booker off foul and I can probably ignore most of it.

Speaking of coaching, I can't recall a time when I've seen someone coach this well. He's gone up against some good coaches imo and made them all look a step behind.

That call where they ran a pin-down that looked like Spain pnr after being successful twice with the latter was sick. I can't recall them giving up any significant runs this whole playoffs tbh, maybe the first round?

That's the way the NFL rulebook. The one you find online is super-abridged. It's really hard to find a copy of the full rulebook online.

Looks like at least an earlier version of the NBA case book is online:

https://official.nba.com/wp-content/...ok-2017-18.pdf

The case in question is 169 (on page 41).