With new rule 4-6-4 in mind, A1 attempts a dunk, during which he pulls down the ring. However, the ball doesn't go in right away, but instead rattles around a bit, perhaps hitting the glass and / or flange. When A1 releases the ring, it strikes the ball.

Is this BI? If yes, would you actually call this (seems ticky-tack to me)?

By rule, it sounds like it is BI, but I can't find anything to dispute it or support it. We discussed this at our local association meeting last night.

Since there is really no reason (unless the player is about to be undercut) for a dunking player to pull down the rim, this call would be acceptable to make. If the coach goes goofy(ier), give him the other alternative to consider -- you didn't call the T for hanging on the rim.

I coach girls. . .
 

. . . so please explain BI to me :D

Re: I coach girls. . .
 

BI is a violation that occurs when a player touches the ball while it's in the imaginary cylinder having the rim as it lower base, touches the ball or basket (ring or net) while the ball is in or on the basket, reaches through the basket from below to touch the ball, or, causes the ring to vibrate where the ball contacts the ring before the ring returns to its normal position. Forgive me for not having the exact terminology but I don't have my rule book handy.

If an offensive player commits BI, cancel any goal and award the ball to the opponent for a throw in. If a defensive player commits BI, score the goal (like a goaltending violation).

Re: I coach girls. . .
 

It involves girls on ladders... and tall ladders at that. :)

Re: Re: I coach girls. . .
 

Stan, Coach's question was a rhetorical one, and his attempt at humor.

MTD, Sr.

Stan did say that he didn't have his rules book so this is not an exact quote from the rule, but it did make me think about how this new rule is being interpreted and will be called.
For the record the new rule 9-11-4 actually says:
"...Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before it returns to its original position."

Notice that it says nothing about causing the ring to vibrate. It also does not define clearly what is meant by "original position." Does the ring have to be motionless or does it merely have to have snapped back from the break-away position to the horizontal position. NFHS Interp play #15 uses the words "still moving," but doesn't tell us if this movement is up, down, or side-to-side or before or after the rim returned to its original position. It is just too vague. I expect some casebook plays and a change in the wording this rule next year.

I read this rule quite strictly and take it to mean exactly what it says. I do not consider the mere fact that the rim is still vibrating after snapping back into position to be encompassed by this rule. IMO, causing the rim to vibrate is either a T or it is legal. Certainly going up and slapping the rim and causing it to vibrate well before an opponent takes a shot, is not a T, nor does it seem to be covered by this new rule. Nor does contacting the rim and causing it to vibrate during a try or block and then while it is still moving, another player grabbing the rebound and trying again, seem to fall under the auspices of this new rule.

I think far too many officials are now going to call BI when the ring is only vibrating or moving slightly, but not returing to the horizontal position at a 90 degree with the plane of the backboard. I do believe it was the intent of the rules committee to include the situations where the rim and backboard are shaking after a dunk or legal grasp in the BI violation.

I will only call it, if the rim is not horizontal (break-away rim in the down position) and strikes the ball on its way back up. This is completely different from motion after it snaps back.

What do you guys think?

I don't think a vibrating rim in its original position is covered by this. I believe this rule covers a rim moving back to it's original position.