Guess I am not understanding why you say Technical, "not BI". I agree on the technical part but are you suggesting that if he made the basket it would not be BI and that the score would count but then a Technical would be called? If a player is grabbing the rim and messing with the ball, I consider that BI and would not count any basket scored in such a way. I am thinking it is both BI and a T. Now, perhaps you meant it was not BI simply because the ball was not in the cylinder and it was not scored. I agree with that but if that ball is scored and he was grabbing the rim, then you have both infractions. (NFHS case 9.11.1 Sit B) Someone can totally correct me if it is different in NCAAM. He did reach and touch the ball and it nearly went in the basket.

Per the 2016-17 Mens Basketball Rulebook, pg 96

Right, so not different, T in both.

(I did always wonder why "substitute" was needed in that article)

It is only a T if the player is hanging on the rim unnecessarily. He is attempting to dunk the ball and the BI called ends the play. I would not call a T here for any reason if the BI was called. But I can make a case that this is not a BI as the ball did not go back to the original position and contact the ball. You could make a case for that, but I am not sure that was technically right.

I also do not see the C giving a T signal. I think he is signalling something else related to the BI. But he goes away from the screen, so hard to ultimately tell.

Peace

Incorrect....It is a T for grabbing the rim and using it for an advantage....like being able to stay up there and reach for the ball to tip it back in. If the they didn't call BI on the dunk attempt itself (they didn't), you simply can't call BI for touching a ball that has bounced out of the basket and is about 1 foot outside of the cylinder. That ball is generally fair game to touch. However, doing so while hanging on the rim (even if for safety) is a T in both NCAA and NFHS.

What is incorrect? It was BI. If he had grabbed the rim and then tried to put the ball in the hole, I would agree with a T if no violation was called. But the violation clearly took place and I see nothing that suggest that this is a BI and a T in this specific play. There are plays you could call both, but not in this play unless you just want to prove you know the rule and be overly "technical."

I also did not say anything about the rule differences either. I would rule it the same way in both, but not relevant to my position. If there was a rebound and the player grabbed the rim and then tried to but the ball in the basket, then I would agree. That is not really what happened here. A violation was called and basically ended the play. I do not expect you to agree, but that is what I am doing.

Peace

He actually did tap the rebound to put it back in....they didn't blow the whistle until that happened.

Accusing someone of being overly technical as a smokescreen to not not knowing the rules is pretty sad.

Let's try to not make it personal, and simply talk about rules and rulings.

That said ... Jeff sometimes says some things that make me scratch my head ... but I think claiming he doesn't know the rules is exceedingly inaccurate.

I am still confused as to why a T was not called on that play. While they may have called BI, any to some it is considered BI, the actions of the shooter grabbing the rim still have TF written all over it. Just don't understand why a TF was not called and why no one, that I recall, even mentioned it.:confused:

Who would mention it?

The announcers? They don't even know what basket interference is, which is what was incorrectly called here. To them, everything is "goaltending" (i.e., the Northwestern play). They certainly wouldn't know that this is actually a technical foul.

Actually I know the rule quite well, but there is debate over the rules or what is expected. Again, you clearly do not work college basketball on the Men's side. Because every game there is a discussion with partners about how we are going to handle the RA and how we give each other the information if the RA is involved. And there is a lot of conversation about when, how or if we do this. If you did this conversation would probably be more of something you would understand because this was a "debate" I love how you quote rules, but you never were in a single meeting where the rule was discussed. If you had, then you would realize that a lot of us are confused about what they want. The rule has been confusing and even tweaked because of that confusion.

Peace

Think you are correct. I can understand how the NW play was missed. From my couch, about 10 feet from the TV, my first reaction was "Whoa, great block!" L probably wasn't looking up there and C/T certainly could simply have not seen it clearly. Now, the Lou rim grab, was obvious to the world. No one missed it in real time. If ever there is a TF, isn't a rim hang, rim grab to aid, etc. an obvious one that everyone knows, especially 4 (on floor crew including L and table alternate) stud D1 officials who probably have over 100 years of combined experience officiating? Don't fans/announcers/coaches/players all know that too? Obviously not, but it still amazes me that no coach/player/announcer/crew member said/indicated something.

Guess I will just take my amazement with me and after this thread, will never miss that call, lol.

Really? Rather than admit you were wrong, I guess it is easier to attack. If that is your criteria, I guess it is clear you don't even work basketball because if you did you wouldn't screw up so much stuff.

Just because you or your local peers were confused doesn't mean the rule is confusing.

Actually again, you do not work a single college game or get the videos from the NCAA. Enough said. ;)

Because you are talking about a statement not the video that was put out, which if you were a college official for some time you would realize those Art Hyman comments are often curious to what the video suggests. But then again you are the person that said that 10-1-4 or 10-6-12 rules were always the case in the rulebook. So I guess I will consider the source.

Peace

I may not currently, but I have in the past. And if you think you're something special for working a few low level NCAA games, keep dreaming.

You seem to have trouble with words and depend on pictures to comprehend things and then still often mess them up, as evidenced here. The words are 100% clear and there is no other way to read them. If you think the videos suggested something else, perhaps it is you. But to say the words or the rule is fuzzy is nothing more than trying to avoid admitting you were wrong (again).


As for 10-1-4...those have been fouls for 100 years. Just because you can't understand it doesn't change the facts. They just changed the words so that some people who had trouble understanding the rules could get it.