|
|||
Quote:
If ball is above rim..in cylinder, I can hit rim or net etc. no violation. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Yes, that would cause problem. Rule says if "any part of ball" in cylinder ...rim as its imaginary base etc.
|
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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). |
|
|||
Quote:
"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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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. Last edited by BigCat; Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 09:10am. |
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
I agree with this. This is probably the reality of the actual situation.
__________________
in OS I trust |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
basket-interference? | ngtotd | Basketball | 7 | Tue May 07, 2013 07:58am |
Basket Interference | Redneck Ref | Basketball | 12 | Fri Dec 30, 2011 02:31pm |
Basket Interference or Not! | 9redskin4 | Basketball | 20 | Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:55pm |
Basket Interference? | RoyalsCoach | Basketball | 29 | Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:43pm |
BASKET INTERFERENCE & T ? | johnfox | Basketball | 5 | Fri Feb 21, 2003 01:03pm |