Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
JR,
That is not right. I know they did not have the benefit of the replay when the call was made. But that could not be BI by rule. The ball never completely went through the basket. Now of course the result would have been basically the same, but BI "technically" would not be right. Then again that is with the benefit of slow motion replay and seeing this play several times.
Peace
|
Rut: this is the second time you have linked the definition of successful goal with basket interference. That is faulty reasoning. They are two mutually exclusive rules. Let me explain the Technicalities.
Whether or not the ball went completely through the basket has nothing to do with whether the basket interference rule has been violated.
What is required is;
1: any player touching the ball while it is within the cylinder with the ring as the lower base (ie. above the ring, on the ring, within the ring, or a player raches up through the ring to prevent ball from entering the basket.
2: If rim is pulled down AND ball touches rim in the down position. Just the pulling down of the rim does not automatically qualify as BI...the ball must touch the rim.
If neither of those two happened then another rule applies. In this case the ball came back out the top of the cylinder. Only thing now left to decide is was the goal successful or not by rule. It did not clear the net therefore no goal.
Jurassic already said that whatever was called the officials got the result part right in not awarding the goal and the team that got the posession of the rebound retained control.
What concerns me is that Kitt's explanation of why they ruled basket interference is faulty (see quote in another post and in Free Press article Jurassic linked to). He misapplied the rule. If the player did not touch the ball or cause the rim to touch the ball it is nothing. What he described was just no goal because it did not meet the rule to deem it sucessful.
Quoting a wrong rule as evidence for getting the right result still causes me to question an officials rules knowledge. Our right calls should be a result of applying the right rule to the situation and if we explain the rule we should be accurate.
Kitt applied the wrong rule to the situation, then misquoted the rule he applied to make it say something it doesn't.
If someone can show me in the NCAA rules where just pulling down on the rim without it touching the ball constitutes BI then I will accept the ruling Kitt gave.
[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Mar 27th, 2005 at 12:23 AM]