|
JR,
I am not talking about any laws of physics defying situation. I am only considering the case in which the ball is rising from below and hits the nets, pushing it up through the level of the ring. So now we have both the ball and the net above the level of the ring. (Since the diameter of the ball is only about 10 inches and the net is 15-18 inches in length, this situation is not only possible, but I have seen it.) However, from this point, the ball does not continue upward and pass through the net exiting on the other side, but instead falls back down through the ring, with the net still on top of it, and comes clear of the basket on the underside.
I think this is the play PGCougar is asking about. I think that it is a very logical and sane question, so I have tried to answer it based on what the rules say. I do acknowledge that most officials do not call it the way it is written, but the way that you have stated. I simply feel this is improper. It would be interesting to see what the answer was (violation or no violation) if this senario ever appeared on a NFHS rules exam.
It is also interesting to note that the language for a goal clearly specifies that the ball does not have to pass all the way through the basket (read net) for a goal to be scored, but may remain in the basket. See 5-1-1.
I feel that if the rules committee wanted the violation to be called for the ball just entering, or entering and remaining in the basket from below, they would have said so, but instead they have clearly written, "enter and pass through the basket."
Last thought, would you call a violation or a jump ball if the ball entered from below and somehow remained in the basket without passing through?
I'd have to go with a jump ball.
Just my take on it.
|