Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045345)

I agree with your answer.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1045359)

An augment can definitely be made that this is a violation. Notice that the definition of the basket specifies that the net must be suspended from beneath the ring. That is the proper position for the net on a legal basket.
Since the ball has now passed completely through the space in which the net is specified to be on a legal basket and through the ring, it can be considered to have passed through a legal basket. It does not need to pass through the net as it is stretched above the level of the ring because that is not its legal position.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1045361)

If the original situation is not a violation, then you have to score a goal. It's a live ball that has entered or remained in the basket from above. 2 points.

Originally Posted by Altor (Post 1045363)

I don't know the answer for the OP, but this logic is definitely incorrect.

The ball entered the basket from below. It went above the ring, but remained in the basket (still in the net) until it fell back through the bottom. It never entered the basket from above.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1045364)

Even if we do consider the ball to have entered the basket from above after rising above the level of the ring, it does not pass through the net or remain within it as required by rule for a goal to be scored.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045344)

... ball never comes out of the net and then falls back through the basket.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1045364)

... after rising above the level of the ring, it does not pass through the net or remain within it as required by rule for a goal to be scored.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1045365)

What?? Of course it does. When it comes back down, passes through the ring and out of the bottom of the net.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1045361)

If the original situation is not a violation, then you have to score a goal. It's a live ball that has entered or remained in the basket from above. 2 points.

In other words, it's a violation.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1045365)

What?? :confused: Of course it does. When it comes back down, passes through the ring and out of the bottom of the net.

I guess I can see the point about not entering the basket from above (since it's already in the net when it gets above the ring), but it obviously passes through the ring and net on the way down.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1045370)

No, it didn't enter the basket from above...it entered it from below. If it had exited the basket and then dropped by down into the basket, you would have a point, but that isn't what was described in the OP.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045344)

#67: During rebounding action, B-5 bats the ball and the ball enters the basket from below and rises above the ring while inside the net. The ball never comes out of the net and then falls back through the basket. The official rules a violation on B-5. Is the official correct?

9-4: A player must not cause (the ball) to enter and pass through the basket from below.

1-10-1: Each basket must consist of a single metal ring, 18 inches in inside diameter, its flange and braces, and a white-cord 12-mesh net, 15 to 18 inches in length, suspended from beneath the ring.

9.4 Situation: At A’s basket, the ball enters the net from below and passes through the basket: (a) The officials do not know whether a player of Team A or Team B was responsible; (b) the ball entered the basket after A1’s pass was deflected by B1; or (c) A1 and B1 touched the ball simultaneously before it entered the basket. Ruling: The ball becomes dead when it enters from below and passes through. In (a) and (c), a throw-in will follow by the team entitled to it under the alternating-possession procedure. In (b), it is A’s ball for a throw-in, as B1 caused the violation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045362)

Nevadaref, Camron Rust, and Scrapper1. Thanks for your recent posts that tell me that this question was not as "cut and dry" as it appeared to be, the reason for my original post to confirm my answer.