Texas Tech v. Notre Dame dunk

[tnolan]

This occurred during the Texas Tech/Notre Dame game:
(5:29 - 5:41 mark)



This is definitely illegal, but in a live game I'm not sure if any official is going to be able to pick this out and discern between that and a normal two-handed dunk, depending on your angle. During the slow motion replay when this was live, it was much easier to tell.

[Raymond]

I actually have it as a Class B technical foul for using to the ring to gain an advantage. And I'm disallowing the goal.

10-4-1.g Placing a hand(s) on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage;

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tnolan

This is definitely OBI, but in a live game I'm not sure if any official is going to be able to pick this out and discern between that and a normal two-handed dunk, depending on your angle. During the slow motion replay when this was live, it was much easier to tell.

The second non-dunking hand on the rim makes this an interesting play to discuss.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For high school rules:

NFHS 10-4-4-A: A player must not: Illegally contact the backboard/ring by: Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage (“The Ralph Sampson Rule”).

... gain an advantage?

NFHS 4-6-1: Basket interference occurs when a player: Touches the ball or any part of the basket (including the net) while the ball is on or within either basket. Exception: In Art. 1 … 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 in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference (“The Bill Russell Rule”).

... his left hand wasn't in contact with the ball ...

Basket interference is the lesser penalty - no basket.

Technical foul is more severe - no basket, two free throws by offended team's best free throw shooter, and an additional offending team foul.

[ilyazhito]

No goal. Class B technical foul on White 20, 1 shot and possession for Blue on the endline.
If the Texas Tech coach argues, "He used the ring to assist himself in scoring".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I actually have it as a Class B technical foul for using to the ring to gain an advantage. And I'm disallowing the goal.

10-4-1.g Placing a hand(s) on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage;

Same here. Agreed.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

"He used the ring to assist himself in scoring".

Did he really assist himself and gain an advantage, or are you just saying that to support the technical foul charge (reverse engineering)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Same here. Agreed.

Gotta go along with the experienced college guys, JRutledge and Raymond.

In my high school game, if I see it, and if I call it, it would probably be basket interference. No judgment needed, it is what it is.

I remember back in high school, those of us "height-challenged" and/or "jump challenged" would, while grasping the ring, pull ourselves up trying to dunk at practice.

This wasn't that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Did he really assist himself and gain an advantage, or are you just saying that to support the technical foul charge (reverse engineering)?

If a coach questioned that aspect of my call, my response would be "That's my judgment of the play. Why did he grab the rim?"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

"That's my judgment of the play."

Can't argue with that.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Gotta go along with the experienced college guys, JRutledge and Raymond.

[tnolan]

What I dislike about the NFHS penalty here is that if you go player technical, the opposing team receives the ball at half court.
I get that the action is illegal (insert "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" analogy) but you've basically awarded half the distance of the court as well which could be a huge advantage based on certain game scenario.
Arguing both sides....it would be crucial to penalize this correctly for that reason as well.

I'd like to see changes to the NFHS technical foul rules. I haven't had time to match them up with NCAA-M or think the penalties all the way through, but I would like to see the penalties lessened, possibly in certain scenarios for a few different reasons.

[tnolan]

The Lead would've been the only official in position to see this, actually slightly behind the play due to the steal, he would've had a great angle at the off-hand.
IF he even sees it, my guess is that this is close enough to let go as it would've been a huge momentum killer. No one likes technical fouls on big dunks...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tnolan

What I dislike about the NFHS penalty here is that if you go player technical ...

Unless your 100% certain that the player gained an advantage by touching the ring, go with basket interference, the only penalty is no basket. Little judgment is involved and it's easier to explain to a coach, or to one's assigner.

I believe that at least one other Forum member shares my opinion.

Originally Posted by tnolan

This is definitely OBI ...

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by tnolan

What I dislike about the NFHS penalty here is that if you go player technical, the opposing team receives the ball at half court.
I get that the action is illegal (insert "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" analogy) but you've basically awarded half the distance of the court as well which could be a huge advantage based on certain game scenario.
Arguing both sides....it would be crucial to penalize this correctly for that reason as well.

I'd like to see changes to the NFHS technical foul rules. I haven't had time to match them up with NCAA-M or think the penalties all the way through, but I would like to see the penalties lessened, possibly in certain scenarios for a few different reasons.

I don’t like the FED rule but the NCAA-M rules are a mess that doesn’t need to trickle down to HS.

[Zoochy]

A similar play happened in the NCAA tournament TWICE at least 4 years ago (maybe more). It created much discussion in my IAABO organization. Then I saw it happen in a High School (NFHS) game the following year and the referee called a Technical foul.
Then I saw it happen in the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament. So I posted the play and asked about the penalty
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ical-foul.html

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I don’t like the FED rule ...

I tried but I couldn't find a video, or a photo, but if one could have seen Virginia's Ralph Sampson dunk with a hand on the backboard in 1981, as I did, one would instantly know that this act gave him an enormous advantage, no question. Brigham Young's Danny Ainge thought Sampson's play was illegal (it was legal at the time), and complained so much that it cost him a technical foul.

Sampson would not have been able to complete that dunk without his hand pushing on the backboard and guiding him, so it was codified and definitely made illegal, by rule, and by intent and purpose.

But a simple, non-advantageous touch? Not so sure.

High school and college players touch the backboard and/or ring all the time. Sometimes it's illegal. Sometimes it's legal.

Ralph Sampson’s (Virginia 1979-1983, NBA 1983-1995) controversial basket against Brigham Young in the 1981 NCAA tournament prompted an NCAA rule change. The seven foot, four inch Virginia Cavalier All-American center dunked the ball with his free hand braced against the backboard. The basket led to a five point swing for Virginia which capitalized on a technical foul against Brigham Young's Danny Ainge who thought Sampson's play was illegal. Actually Sampson did nothing wrong since, at the time, there was no rule making this an illegal play. Since 1983 NFHS rules now state that it’s illegal for player to place a hand on the backboard, or the ring, to gain an advantage.