Player Hanging on Rim....

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The crew should have considered defensive BI, if the ball struck the ring on the shot and it had not yet returned to its original position. If the ring had returned, then nothing need be called.

Suppose the ring returns to original position but entire structure (backboard and goal) are shaking such that the try gets bounced off rim?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Suppose the ring returns to original position but entire structure (backboard and goal) are shaking such that the try gets bounced off rim?

Then nothing can be called by rule.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Suppose the ring returns to original position but entire structure (backboard and goal) are shaking such that the try gets bounced off rim?

"original/normal" position means that the rim has stopped moving/vibrating. It's in the same position it was before the grasp. If a player grabs the rim and causes it and the "entire structure" to vibrate/move then it is BI if the ball hits the rim and bounces out.

9.11.4 is the case play where a defender grabs rim.

[letemplay]

Thanks for the reference.

Change it up: A1 attempts a dunk and grabs rim to prevent injury, ball bounces high off ring, A1 regains balance and drops, but rim and backboard are still shaking when ball comes down and bounces off moving rim.
No whistle?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Thanks for the reference.



Change it up: A1 attempts a dunk and grabs rim to prevent injury, ball bounces high off ring, A1 regains balance and drops, but rim and backboard are still shaking when ball comes down and bounces off moving rim.

No whistle?

Good scenario, but no whistle is correct. The missed dunk is a try, and like any try that strikes the rim and bounces straight up, it's not over yet. A1 is permitted to grasp the rim in the process of attempting to dunk, and as such BI is not in play due to any action by A1 during this try (unless he were to come down and then jump back up and commit BI before his own try ended).

If the try ends and/or if a different player commits BI incident to the dunk try, then we have a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Good scenario, but no whistle is correct. The missed dunk is a try, and like any try that strikes the rim and bounces straight up, it's not over yet. A1 is permitted to grasp the rim in the process of attempting to dunk, and as such BI is not in play due to any action by A1 during this try (unless he were to come down and then jump back up and commit BI before his own try ended).

If the try ends and/or if a different player commits BI incident to the dunk try, then we have a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to disagree with that. While no technical foul, A1 is still responsible for BI. See 9.11.4a for a similar situation involving a defender. Also, 10.3.3 SituationB

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Good scenario, but no whistle is correct. The missed dunk is a try, and like any try that strikes the rim and bounces straight up, it's not over yet. A1 is permitted to grasp the rim in the process of attempting to dunk, and as such BI is not in play due to any action by A1 during this try (unless he were to come down and then jump back up and commit BI before his own try ended).

If the try ends and/or if a different player commits BI incident to the dunk try, then we have a different story.

Got a rules citation for that because I don't agree.
My understanding is that once the ball breaks contact with the player's hands the offensive player is subject to being penalized for BI if the ball does anything other than immediately proceed through the basket.

And there are Case Book rulings to support my thoughts.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Got a rules citation for that because I don't agree.
My understanding is that once the ball breaks contact with the player's hands the offensive player is subject to being penalized for BI if the ball does anything other than immediately proceed through the basket.

And there are Case Book rulings to support my thoughts.

Nope, my interpretation and I'm willing to be proven wrong. 9.11.4A involves a defender I believe, so I'd have to be convinced with some kind of NFHS or NCAA case play. I'm lying in bed so I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Nope, my interpretation and I'm willing to be proven wrong. 9.11.4A involves a defender I believe, so I'd have to be convinced with some kind of NFHS or NCAA case play. I'm lying in bed so I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only rule that exempts a player from BI is the one relating to dunking the ball....where the ball goes directly into the basket. It is deemed to have no impact on the play. If, however, the ball bounces up and then comes back down to the rim, it would be no different than any other rim contact during a try.

EXCEPTION: In Arts. 1 or 2, if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Nope, my interpretation and I'm willing to be proven wrong. 9.11.4A involves a defender I believe, so I'd have to be convinced with some kind of NFHS or NCAA case play. I'm lying in bed so I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Give this a read: NFHS Case Book 9.11.2 Situation B

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Good scenario, but no whistle is correct. The missed dunk is a try, and like any try that strikes the rim and bounces straight up, it's not over yet. A1 is permitted to grasp the rim in the process of attempting to dunk, and as such BI is not in play due to any action by A1 during this try (unless he were to come down and then jump back up and commit BI before his own try ended).

If the try ends and/or if a different player commits BI incident to the dunk try, then we have a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The BI rule, 4-6 arts. 1 and 2, tell us it is BI if a player touches the ball while it is in the cylinder or touches the basket while the ball is on rim or in basket. The exception to these two rules says a player can have contact with the ball and "continue" that contact into the cylinder and "touch" the basket…."dunking or stuffing is legal…" The exception is to Art. 1 and 2 only.

When the missed dunk hits back iron and goes straight up the player can hang on the rim for safety. the ball is not on the rim or in the basket at that point nor is the player actually touching it while it is in the cylinder. No violation yet. However, if, when he lets go, the rim is pulled and it vibrates…and continues to vibrate when ball hits it--it is BI. That is article 4.

Finally, the exception simply makes it clear that dunking/stuffing is legal and you can make contact with the basket and be touching ball in cylinder while doing so. It isn't a license to continue that contact with the basket.

I only came back to this thread because you mentioned in the other one that you wrest convinced yet…. thx

[HokiePaul]

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

"original/normal" position means that the rim has stopped moving/vibrating. It's in the same position it was before the grasp. If a player grabs the rim and causes it and the "entire structure" to vibrate/move then it is BI if the ball hits the rim and bounces out.

9.11.4 is the case play where a defender grabs rim.

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.