Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Rule 10-3-5(b) definitively says it's a "T" to cause the ring to vibrate while a try is in flight, touching the backboard, or in the basket or cylinder. That's exactly what B1 did in casebook play 10.3.5(b). There's no gray area. Note that it's only a technical foul under rule 10-3-5 to pull the net if you do so while a try is in flight. Further note that it doesn't really matter, because it is always a technical foul to pull the net under rule 10-3-4 anyway(unless the player grasped the net to prevent injury). The net is part of the basket, by rule, as you pointed out above. And....you can't grasp either basket at any time under 10-3-4, except for the disclaimer above. It has always amazed me that the FED hasn't pointed this little fact out. It makes casebook play 10.3.5(b) redundant.
|
Thanks for reminding me about NFHS Rule 10-3-4.
Let's say that after a legal try, the ball ends up sitting on the ring, and a defensive player accidental touches the net. Ball falls off ring and doesn't go in. Basket interference. Award the goal. New offensive team gets ball on end line and can run the endline.
Let's say that after a legal try, the ball ends up sitting on the ring, and a defensive player accidentally grabs the net. Basket vibrates (10-3-5), or doesn't vibrate (10-3-4). Ball falls into basket. Technical foul. Disallow the goal (basket (net) grab technical foul caused ball to become dead). Two technical foul shots, same team gets ball to inbound at the halfcourt line opposite the table. One more foul added to defensive team total.
So the difference between accidentally touching the net, and grabbing the net, is the difference between giving a team a definite two points (awarding the goal for basket interference), and giving a team a chance, but not definite, to score from none to, let's say four, or, maybe, five points (lots of possibilities after the technical foul shots are either made or missed) after disallowing the definite goal?
I know that your are probably correct by rule, and probably by the intent of the rule as well, but, to me, something just doesn't seem right here???
