thinking about last nights game

[celticinorlando]

how big was rondo's little floater to end the first half? that ended up being a huge shot for the Cs in the end

[adam8]

you could look back at every shot and say it was a big shot in a one point game but I am a believer that they would have found a way to win whether or not he made that I don't beleive that the rest of the game would have played out the same way had he missed.

[connerhenry43]

you could look back at every shot and say it was a big shot in a one point game but I am a believer that they would have found a way to win whether or not he made that I don't beleive that the rest of the game would have played out the same way had he missed.

the bench only scored 2 points, but marbury's little bank shot was big. in a 2 point game, they are all big.

the 2nd to last shot BBD hit was just as big as the game winner.

[celticinorlando]

you could look back at every shot and say it was a big shot in a one point game but I am a believer that they would have found a way to win whether or not he made that I don't beleive that the rest of the game would have played out the same way had he missed.

the bench only scored 2 points, but marbury's little bank shot was big. in a 2 point game, they are all big.

the 2nd to last shot BBD hit was just as big as the game winner.

very true

[guava_wrench]

you could look back at every shot and say it was a big shot in a one point game but I am a believer that they would have found a way to win whether or not he made that I don't beleive that the rest of the game would have played out the same way had he missed.

Your point is the reason why it is silly to talk about the importance of individual outcomes earlier in the game. We don't know what would have happened had that event been different. Unless there was a clearly momentous event that result from that one act, like Howard breaking his leg trying to block the shot, we can't speculate on what the outcome would have been had Rondo missed.

[Redz]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

[RAcker]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

Yeah, the Rondo one was a horrible no call.  I don't even see how Tommy could back that lack of a call.  Well...maybe Tommy could spin it, but the rest of us... 

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

Yeah, the Rondo one was a horrible no call.  I don't even see how Tommy could back that lack of a call.  Well...maybe Tommy could spin it, but the rest of us... 

Actually, it was the correct call in that instance.  For the most part, once the ball hits the backboard, it's on its downward trajectory and should be called a goal tend if touched.  However, in that particular instance, when Rondo made the block the ball was on the backboard yet still below the rim, since it hit that part of the very bottom of the backboard which extends below the rim.  By rule, any ball still below the rim cannot be goal-tended.  Rondo blocked the ball before it got above the rim--that's why it wasn't called a goal tend.

[vagrantwade]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

Yeah, the Rondo one was a horrible no call.  I don't even see how Tommy could back that lack of a call.  Well...maybe Tommy could spin it, but the rest of us... 

Actually, it was the correct call in that instance.  For the most part, once the ball hits the backboard, it's on its downward trajectory and should be called a goal tend if touched.  However, in that particular instance, when Rondo made the block the ball was on the backboard yet still below the rim, since it hit that part of the very bottom of the backboard which extends below the rim.  By rule, any ball still below the rim cannot be goal-tended.  Rondo blocked the ball before it got above the rim--that's why it wasn't called a goal tend.

You should go back and look at it. The ball was well above the rim, and he hit it AFTER it hit the backboard. I have DVR, I watched it many timed.

[crownsy]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

Yeah, the Rondo one was a horrible no call.  I don't even see how Tommy could back that lack of a call.  Well...maybe Tommy could spin it, but the rest of us... 

Actually, it was the correct call in that instance.  For the most part, once the ball hits the backboard, it's on its downward trajectory and should be called a goal tend if touched.  However, in that particular instance, when Rondo made the block the ball was on the backboard yet still below the rim, since it hit that part of the very bottom of the backboard which extends below the rim.  By rule, any ball still below the rim cannot be goal-tended.  Rondo blocked the ball before it got above the rim--that's why it wasn't called a goal tend.

Thats just not true. that was a goal tend, pure and simple. that ball was well above the rim.

we got away with one.

[Roy Hobbs]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

Yeah, the Rondo one was a horrible no call.  I don't even see how Tommy could back that lack of a call.  Well...maybe Tommy could spin it, but the rest of us... 

Actually, it was the correct call in that instance.  For the most part, once the ball hits the backboard, it's on its downward trajectory and should be called a goal tend if touched.  However, in that particular instance, when Rondo made the block the ball was on the backboard yet still below the rim, since it hit that part of the very bottom of the backboard which extends below the rim.  By rule, any ball still below the rim cannot be goal-tended.  Rondo blocked the ball before it got above the rim--that's why it wasn't called a goal tend.

Thats just not true. that was a goal tend, pure and simple. that ball was well above the rim.

we got away with one.

Yeah, I'd love to see the replay on that, because the "below the rim" recollection isn't how I remember it at all.

[Fafnir]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

Well Ray got fouled before he put up one of those goaltends. So either 2 FTAs or the shot itself.

[BrickJames]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

Yeah, the Rondo one was a horrible no call.  I don't even see how Tommy could back that lack of a call.  Well...maybe Tommy could spin it, but the rest of us... 

Actually, it was the correct call in that instance.  For the most part, once the ball hits the backboard, it's on its downward trajectory and should be called a goal tend if touched.  However, in that particular instance, when Rondo made the block the ball was on the backboard yet still below the rim, since it hit that part of the very bottom of the backboard which extends below the rim.  By rule, any ball still below the rim cannot be goal-tended.  Rondo blocked the ball before it got above the rim--that's why it wasn't called a goal tend.

Goaltending criteria:

e. During a field goal attempt, touch a ball after it has touched the backboard below the ring level and while the ball is on its upward flight.

Even if the ball was below the ring as you're saying, it was an underhand shot and was most certainly going up.

Regardless, I found this interesting, as it is like a universal copout for a bad call:

c. For goaltending to occur, the ball, in the judgment of the official, must have a chance to score.

Ha.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_11.html

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

The Celts also received the nice benefits of two goaltending calls or no calls.

Yeah, the Rondo one was a horrible no call.  I don't even see how Tommy could back that lack of a call.  Well...maybe Tommy could spin it, but the rest of us... 

Actually, it was the correct call in that instance.  For the most part, once the ball hits the backboard, it's on its downward trajectory and should be called a goal tend if touched.  However, in that particular instance, when Rondo made the block the ball was on the backboard yet still below the rim, since it hit that part of the very bottom of the backboard which extends below the rim.  By rule, any ball still below the rim cannot be goal-tended.  Rondo blocked the ball before it got above the rim--that's why it wasn't called a goal tend.

Goaltending criteria:

e. During a field goal attempt, touch a ball after it has touched the backboard below the ring level and while the ball is on its upward flight.

Even if the ball was below the ring as you're saying, it was an underhand shot and was most certainly going up.

Regardless, I found this interesting, as it is like a universal copout for a bad call:

c. For goaltending to occur, the ball, in the judgment of the official, must have a chance to score.

Ha.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_11.html

Wow, I stand corrected.  I guess once it goes up on the backboard it's a goal tend no matter what, even if the ball is below the rim.  It doesn't make sense to me, but I guess that's the rule.  You'd think it would be impossible to goal tend anything that's below the rim...

As for the shot in question, I'd love to see the replay too, just to make sure.  My recollection is that Rondo hit the ball before it got above the rim.  As we were watching the replay on TNT I told my fiancee that it wasn't a goal tend because Rondo hit it before it got above the rim. 

But, since it's a goal tend any way you cut it, the official must have made the judgment that it had no chance of going in.  Going off my memory of the shot, that was probably the right call...

[BudweiserCeltic]

I doubt the refs saw that it hit the backboard first. Refs miss that all the time.