Nine second rim hang = no call

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I read all about the NBA rules making this ring grasp legal. Now we have all been reminded why this is illegal in NFHS rules.

If I failed to read the pertinent post, how would I know this:



If I'm allowed to speculate, what does the NBA mean by it's legal because it's during a dead ball, doesn't most ring grasping take place during the dead ball period immediately after a dunk?

From the NBA: The ball is dead and he is not taunting opponents or delaying the game.

Does the NBA define dead ball differently than the NFHS? I guess that that is possible.

It means the ball wasn't live and he wasn't hanging on the rim while other players are trying to shoot or something like that.


You've been given an explanation and you're still not satisfied, that's the problem. I don't see anybody else here confused as to what the ruling would be in their own games. Why do you feel like other officials in this forum don't know the rules and how to apply them to their own games?

Did anybody here give an indication that this would be legal in one of their games? Anybody here say they don't know the rule in one of their own games?

Your constant speculation does more to confuse new officials than help them.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It means the ball wasn't live and he wasn't hanging on the rim while other players are trying to shoot or something like that. You've been given an explanation and you're still not satisfied, that's the problem. Why do you feel like other officials in this forum don't know the rules and how to apply them to their own games?

One single explanation (from Raymond, above, "or something that"). Not a single explanation regarding the NBA "dead ball" statement before Raymond's. And who says that I'm not satisfied after getting the single explanation?

Why do you assume that everyone who views this Forum, both members, and nonmembers, are officials? We have players, coaches, and fans that get sent here after posing a question on a search engine. Some decide to join just to ask questions (long time lurker, first time poster).

Why do you assume that every official on this Forum is experienced, knows all the rules, knows all the interpretations, knows all the mechanics, knows all the differences in rule sets, etc. Officials have to be beginners at some point in their career, they're not born as great officials that never have any questions.

I view one of the purposes of the Forum to be educational. Maybe I'm in the minority? Maybe I'm biased because of my thirty-plus year teaching background, my service on training committees for both rules and mechanics, and the publication of several of my educational basketball officiating articles in magazines?

Teaching is in my blood, whether it's teaching science, or teaching basketball officiating.

I've been officiating for almost four decades, and I've been a Forum member over a dozen years, and yet, I learn something on the Forum all the time. And if I don't learn something new, I'm often reminded about things that I already know, things that are reinforced in my mind. Repetition is an important part of learning. Most people don't learn something well by learning it only once.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

....

I view one of the purposes of the Forum to be educational. Maybe I'm in the minority? ...

I view it to be educational also. And I also view it to be tailored towards basketball officials. You throwing in stories about Lew Alcindor, Darryl Dawkins, and James Naismith doesn't help a new official or a lurking fan understand the rules. It just throws in a bunch of extraneous thoughts in their mind that have nothing to do with the rule they are trying to learn.

If you want to know the NBA rule, look it up and provide us the information, instead of waiting for someone else to do your legwork. You have the same access to the NBA rules as anyone else in this forum.

And I'll ask you again, do you seriously think anybody in the forum doesn't know this would a Technical Foul in the rule set they officiate?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Do you seriously think anybody in the forum doesn't know this would a Technical Foul in the rule set they officiate?

Officials? Absolutely not. They all know it.

Coaches, players? They probably know it also.

Fans? Often not the sharpest tools in the shed.

Me? NBA? Still not sure about the dead ball thing, but believe that it was the correct no-call based on the NBA's followup. Regarding NBA rules, other than whetting my innate curiosity, like our beautiful First Lady, I really don't care, so I won't pursue it.

Note: I guarantee that ilyazhito will never again wonder why hanging on the ring is a bad thing. It's all about context. Am I right ilyazhito?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Altor

Last two-minute report

Does "CNC" mean correct no call? I presume that it does. Curious about a couple of items:

1) Do they acknowledge all "CNCs"? Wouldn't there be many within the last two minutes? There are many cases (like several every play) of contact where a foul is not called. I am guessing that they do not so why would they acknowledge this one? (IMO, because everyone questioned it)

2) The provided rational seems illogical. Does their explanation mean that any player can simply grab and hang onto a rim during a dead ball with no one around as long as they are not taunting or delaying the game? I am guessing not. What about say, the backboard? Could they grab the rim, pull up, and climb to the top of the backboard as long as that given criteria is met? Also, guessing not. Could they swing like a pendulum from the net for the duration of the timeout given said criteria is met? Guessing not. Ergo, the explanation is a slap in the face as far as I am concerned. Again, I know it is about money/entertainment/etc. Additionally, hanging on the rim with the same criteria has been called a T hundreds of times. What makes this play different, especially since the hang is so long?


Draymond Green (see below link) does same thing (TO called as he hangs) but gets a Technical. Also, LBJ does it and NBA confirms that it was an incorrect no call. Sooooo, it does not get more contradictory, inconsistent, and hypocritical than that. Unless of course...... something changed between then and now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Wd6vk3--0

[SC Official]

Maybe you should take all these questions to the people that actually run the NBA and the officiating program. i.e. none of us

At the end of the day, NBA officials do as they are instructed by their powers-that-be. It really is no different than what high school or college officials do, or what we all do in our full-time jobs. Yet for some reason high school officials love to bash on NBA basketball and its officials, who are the best in the world at their career.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

The provided rational seems illogical.

From the NBA: The ball is dead and he is not taunting opponents or delaying the game.

Since you brought it up, the only part that I found illogical was, paraphrasing here, "It's legal because it's a dead ball", explanation. Doesn't most illegal ring grasping take place during the dead ball period immediately after a dunk?

Everything else can be logically explained as, "It's the NBA. Rules are different than in other rule sets".

I'm not looking for any further explanation, like our First Lady, I really don't care.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by bucky

Does "CNC" mean correct no call?

Yes

1) Do they acknowledge all "CNCs"? Wouldn't there be many within the last two minutes?

I would think this is where the evaluator and editor have to make decisions about what needs to be included. Putting in a bunch of "CNC - This is not traveling because the player is dribbling the ball" would not be beneficial to anybody.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I want to be an NBA official, because I believe that these guys are the best in the business, and I want to challenge myself to be at their level.

Maybe in your next lifetime.

I know refs with NBA potential. You do not begin to measure up.

I hope you are Buddhist

[bucky]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Maybe you should take all these questions to the people that actually run the NBA and the officiating program. i.e. none of us

At the end of the day, NBA officials do as they are instructed by their powers-that-be. It really is no different than what high school or college officials do, or what we all do in our full-time jobs. Yet for some reason high school officials love to bash on NBA basketball and its officials, who are the best in the world at their career.

You act as if these questions have not been taken to those that run the NBA and the officiating program. They do not have transparency so one tends to take them elsewhere with hopes of clarification. Bashing is fun when against all hypocrites. Funny how consistency is probably a high goal for all officials (at least all of the thousands I have encountered) but yet here is a prime example of the "best in the world" being extremely inconsistent, to the point of having it documented. Sometimes being inconsistent and considered the best is not that great....wait, unless you are in that group, then it is OK.

Now, where did Billy leave his keys...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I want to be an NBA official, because I believe that these guys are the best in the business, and I want to challenge myself to be at their level.

Originally Posted by justacoach

Maybe in your next lifetime. I hope you are Buddhist

I want to get through my subvarsity doubleheaders without my bone spur locking up my right ankle, without my left knee acting up, without having another heart attack, and without waking up the next morning on the wrong side of the grass.

The early bird gets the worm. I don't want the early worms to get me.

How about those for lofty goals?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Now, where did Billy leave his keys...

They're probably with my reading glasses.

I don't have time to look for them because have to yell at the neighbor kids to get the hell off my front lawn. I haven't stored my garden hose away for the winter yet.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

You act as if these questions have not been taken to those that run the NBA and the officiating program. They do not have transparency so one tends to take them elsewhere with hopes of clarification. Bashing is fun when against all hypocrites. Funny how consistency is probably a high goal for all officials (at least all of the thousands I have encountered) but yet here is a prime example of the "best in the world" being extremely inconsistent, to the point of having it documented. Sometimes being inconsistent and considered the best is not that great....wait, unless you are in that group, then it is OK.

Now, where did Billy leave his keys...

NBA refs have more accountability than anybody who posts on the board, including you and me. Bashing is petty and bullsh!t.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Maybe in your next lifetime.

I know refs with NBA potential. You do not begin to measure up.

I hope you are Buddhist

I think the hostility towards our college-aged poster is unwarranted. Nobody here knows him personally or has seen him officiate.

Years ago Jurassic was equally dismissive of and combative towards a young poster who went by the handle of "btaylor64". Three guesses what the "b' stands for and where he is working now.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I think the hostility towards our college-aged poster is unwarranted.

Please don't misapprehend good-natured ribbing as hostility.

I have done my part in encouraging and grooming young officials.

Would not venture to counsel our young friend solely based on his bombastic public utterances.