Is this Basket Interference?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

[Rich]

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?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

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?

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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 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

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

You know those "technical" BI calls where a hand might be in a net with the ball coming through? The ones we look at and go, "technically, that's BI" and then call nothing (and noone expects you to)?