Playing devils advocate here on the original post, but what if you believe that the hanging on the rim was primarily done to avoid fouling rather than for safety reasons, what would you rule to avoid "permitting an advantage not intended by a rule."

Perhaps this was how the evaluator arguing for a Technical foul saw the play.

If I watch the play and think safety is a possible factor I am not calling a T. I really don't try to determine the player's reasons. Frankly, the foul being avoided is likely landing on the other player or crashing into him. safer to hang.

I'm going to have to study this a bit more when I get home today, but I don't think this is right. "original position" is in reference to the rim snapping back into position.

Shaking or vibrating the rim structure does not qualify as BI.

The rule says BI if a player pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before ring returns to original position. The case play i mentioned above, 9.11.4, says B4 grasps the ring, lets go and lands safely. The ring is "still moving" when the ball hits the "moving ring" and bounces out. ruling- no T because B4 grabbed ring for safety but it is BI because ball struck a "still- vibrating" ring.

Many rims, not all, will continue to move after they snap back into place. vibrate. If somebody is sooo heavy that the rim is still moving and so is the entire structure then I have BI. Also, I look further to the intent of the rule. If player grabs rim and it is still moving when the ball hits it BI for me.