NCAA Tournament Video Requests - Sunday March 19

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dale3

Can someone confirm / deny that this was correctly ruled BI per NCAAM rules?

We seem to have agreement that in HS this is a Technical, not BI. And as Johnny Ringo points out, the C does appear to be signaling a T.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[bucky]

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.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by bucky

... Just don't understand why a TF was not called and why no one, that I recall, even mentioned it.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, you clearly do not work college basketball on the Men's side.
Peace

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really? Rather than admin 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