yes, this is from the article i posted. going by that rule(the new one, not the old one), kobe's shot would be illegal for crossing through the imaginary 'tunnel' that extends back from the backboard. and this came from the vice president of referee operations two weeks ago, so i'd say it's probably correct. the cnnsi article says that there was a rule change 2 decades ago. not sure how that's relevant. kobe can say that it's a legal play all he wants, but i haven't ever seen that it actually is one. i mean, like i said before, it's still a great shot. it just shouldn't have counted. and it's not like it had any impact on the outcome of the game.
The rule doesn't make much sense if it is illegal, but he didn't get FTs so I don't think people should be complaining. Why discount that shot? Is it some advantage to take a ridiculously tough jumper fading out of bounds? That's penalizing blindly. I don't think anyone cares man.
The rule is confusing, but my interpretation of it would be a ball arcing toward the basket from behind the backboard is legal and a ball arcing away from the backboard would be illegal. [video=youtube;hCEefNpFeWw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEefNpFeWw[/video] Here's another one that counted from Peja.
i'm discounting the shot? i've called it both awesome and great. it just isn't a shot that counts. there are lots of great shots that people could make that don't count.
the peja shot was from the side. kobe was in the paint and behind the backboard. so peja's shot wouldn't go through the 'tunnel', but kobe's would.
It appears you're not clear on the rules either, it is quite a vague thing we're discussing. Yes you're discounting the shot, literally. If you want to make it about semantics. It is interesting how you want to focus on the legality of the shot but not the foul call.
it doesn't really seem like that vague of a thing to me. the link i posted explains it as does the quote shapecity posted. they post say the same thing about the rule. you can't be directly behind the backboard and shoot over it. that is illegal. but it is legal to shoot from the sides of the backboard. you're right in that i'm focusing on the legality of the shot. i wanted to know if it was legal or not because when initially viewing it i thought that it was not legal. i was assuming that someone here who felt it was definitely legal might have something to back that up with. since that didn't happen, i found something myself that explained it. the no call of the foul doesn't matter. they counted the shot. kobe isn't a 100% free throw shooter, so giving him the made basket works in his favor. and it's not like the points mattered either way in the outcome of the game that was already a blowout in the first quarter.
Shape has posted his material, it surely is a vague subject. The arch of the ball and various factors have to be taken into account, we've seen it analyzed by a connoisseur already, dude. He should have been given two free throws, "and it's not like it had any impact on the outcome of the game." You only feel the need to analyze the details that don't benefit the Lakers, that makes me curious.
had it been kevin durant who'd taken the shot, i'd be saying the exact same thing i said about kobe's shot.
Very cool shot, but technically illegal. Basket shouldn't have counted, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have drawn FTs for the bump though. No reason a player can't draw a foul on baskets that don't count. Where he released the ball he was definitely behind the backboard. The ball went through the "tunnel behind the backboard". Where as that Peja clip, the ball never went through the tunnel, it started behind the backboard, but was no where near the "tunnel".
Edit, from the first vid it looked like it was illegal. Now seeing the shot from another perspective, it is hard to tell. Too bad they didn't show the shot from the opposite side of the court. That would give the best perspective on it. You could see if the ball was behind the "funnel".
