The cylinder is from the ring skyward. If a ball is sitting ON the rim, by definition it is in the cylinder. Just remember, the reason I see this as BI is offense touches part of basket, the rim, while ball is on rim or in basket. That is the rule. I don't need to use word cylinder for this play.

If ball is above rim..in cylinder, I can hit rim or net etc. no violation.

I think I've been interpreting "in the cylinder" meaning at least half of the ball is in it, and that's the problem. If any part of the ball is "in the cylinder" then we have a problem.

Yes, that would cause problem. Rule says if "any part of ball" in cylinder ...rim as its imaginary base etc.

The odds of me actually calling this after calling a foul are near zero, I'll admit. I'm likely scoring it and shooting 1.

What did the crew on the game do?

I feel the same way. The C called the foul and counted it initially. Jeff's question made me wonder if they waved it off. I also asked what they did. No answer yet.

The basket was counted as I felt it should have been. The shooter is fouled and the reason he even has a hold of the rim. I would not call anything on a foul like this.

Peace

All's well that ends well.

Would you do the same if a player in the act of shooting is fouled and travels before making a basket?
I don't see any difference. The fouled player still commits a violation before scoring a goal. I agree with not charging a fouled player with a technical foul for grasping the ring, but I don't concur with ignoring violations.

I didn't watch the video, I was only reacting to what I read you said (and I recognize that what I read might not be what you meant.)

If the ball is in the cylinder, but not on or in the basket, it's NOT BI to touch or grasp the rim. It IS BI to touch the ball while the ball is in the cylinder.

And, in the picture that accompanies the video in the OP, the ball is not on or in the basket -- the ball is touching the side of the basket (imo -- I would agree that it's hard to tell from the angle provided).

I am getting from 10-15-2d that this action is legal. At least that is how I read it when it says:

"A player my have a hand legally in contact with the ball, when the contract continues after the ball enters the cylinder or when, during such action the player touches or grabs the basket."

I am convinced that is a legal play based on the wording. This has nothing to do with a travel call IMO. This is it appears the rules or interpretation not calling a violation on this kind of play.

Peace

Might look at the 9.11.* case plays.

My reference was the NCAA Book which was the level this actually took place and my reasoning for not calling a violation in this particular play. Also there is no play in the NF Casebook that describes this play either. There is a play where a teammate grabs the rim, but not the fouled player who is basically dunking.

Peace

By rule, its basket interference in both rule sets. He didn't carry the ball in etc. It's rolling on the rim. I don't like the rule because kid was fouled and his contact with rim had nothing to do with making ball go in.

It's a call I just wouldn't make like multiple fouls. I certainly wouldn't say it's legal under 10-15...etc. it doesn't apply to this. He was planning on carrying it in...but he didn't because of the foul. It should be legal...Just count basket and move on.

There is no A.R. that says this kind of play is Basket Interference. All A.R are associated with another player other than the shooter touching the ball or basket. A fouled player has been addressed in videos over the years and giving them exceptions to things when they are fouled.

Peace

I agree with this. This is probably the reality of the actual situation.