Is this Basket Interference?
 

Here is the play?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hAFOMW-IAs4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

I guess the question here is does it qualify for the dunk exception?

Offensive BI. No goal, award 2 FTs.

Rule says can't touch any part of basket while ball is on or within it. Case play about a player grabbing rim for safety. No T but still BI.

By rule, this is BI. Ball on rim when he grabs it. No T cause off balance from foul. Grabs for safety. If I missed it, counted basket and gave one FT I wouldn't be too upset. I'd be wrong by rule but not upset...

Not BI. Nice triple whistle though.

Did the crew stay with counting the basket and shooting 1? C made the call and counted it. Your second question "good application of the rule or not" makes me wonder if they waved it off and shot 2. Thx

Without specific guidance from my section/assignor this is a BI call.

Just one whistle grasshopper. It is BI under rules. I might pass on it or miss the call...but it is BI.

Once the ball is no longer in the shooter's grasp, I don't see how you can give him the dunking exception. The ball is on the cylinder and the ring is still moving after he has let go of it. Seems like BI to me.

I think -- Grasping the ring while the ball is in the cylinder is NOT BI. Nor is having the ring moving once the ball comes back down -- the ring just needs to be back at it's position.

The exception states "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 the imaginary cylinder or if such in action, the player touches the basket."

The shooter actually lost the handle on the ball before it was even within the imaginary cylinder (:23 into the video). And while he lets go of the ring before the ball enters the cylinder, the ring is still moving when the ball is on the ring.

Bryan. The shooter has a hold of the rim while the ball is rolling on the rim. That is main reason it is BI. (If ball is on rim it is by definition in cylinder so I'm not sure how you get that he lets go of ring before ball "enters cylinder.")

Also, The rim is still moving up and down when ball hits it so I think you can have it for this reason also. I think "original position" means rim has to be still.

Id still likely pass because foul caused it all. I know there's no exception for that but that's likely what I'd do.

When I read "imaginary cylinder" I think of something like a tube with it's base being the ring itself. And the ball was not in that "tube" when he loses the grasp of the ball. If I'm misinterpreting the rule, then okay. Thanks

I understand being "fair", but how would you explain why you'd let the basket count?

That is the cylinder. Rim skyward. You said he let's go of the ring before ball enters the cylinder. Ball is clearly on ring when he grabs it.

And I wouldn't explain it. Frankly, I might not process it fast enough or care to try and process it. Don't like that offense did nothing to cause it. He got fouled. He didn't jump out of control and create his own need to grab rim. His grabbing didn't help ball go in. If I called it I'd certainly be proving I knew the rule.
Just not sure it's best thing to do.
I don't call multiple fouls and probably wouldn't call this. My supervisors would not care. Others might.

So "on the ring" and "in the cylinder" are the same thing? Okay.

I wouldn't have seen it this way in real time, and like you would have allowed the basket to stand. Hooray for slow-motion replay!

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.

Using your description ... if the ball is TOUCHING the tube, it's in the cylinder. If it is completely outside the tube (the ball in this video is NOT completely outside), then it's not in the cylinder.

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)?

I don't think any NCAA coach would ask. This type of play is not rare at the level of play with those sizes of players.