I need to know what you guys believe. The new BI rule says that it is BI if the ball contacts the ring before it returns to its original position. To me this means that a vibrating ring is not included, only one that is returning from the down/breakaway position to the horizontal position.

However, I then read the new casebook play on page 3 and see that it indicates that a vibrating ring is considered BI. It also uses some different terms such as normal position instead of original position.

Also, the casebook play makes it seem like BI should not be called if the ball hits the ring and enters the basket. Yet in the interps on the NFHS website, #15 clearly states that if the ball hits and goes in, it is BI and the ball is dead. It also clarifies that if the ball passes through without touching the ring then it counts and play continues.

I think that this rule has some refining to go through. The wording certainly needs to be cleaned up. The casebook play puts forth a very different understanding of the rule than would be gathered from simply reading the actual rule in the rules book. They also don't define the terms original position or normal position. Do they mean no movement or vibration at all?

But bottom line, is it BI if the ring has snapped back to the horizontal position, but is still vibrating/shaking when the ball hits it?

What I believe is you have way too much free time on your hands. This went into the ncaa rules after the Bob Knight-Ted Valentine mess...errr...game...and is meant to specifically address one play. The rule & case play is fine as written once you accept the fact that "the original position" is the locked position and any reference to "vibration" means significant upwards movement prior to the ring relocking. Yes, there might be some residual vibration after locking but that will be insignificant compared to the upwards flight of the rim and can safely be ignored or not, depending - in other words some judgement required in the once in 3 lifetimes case. As for whether it's BI if the ball goes in: of course it is, just as in the "normal" BI case. It only makes a difference if the offense violates anyway.

I strongly disagree. Sure, sometimes we can think ourselves into a hole as it relates to the wording of certain rules, but at least there's thought going into it. I think any process whereby we seek to ascertain a better understanding of the rules should be encouraged.

Thanks for the input Paul. Now, you have an answer for Nevada's question?

Thanks for the input Paul. Now, you have an answer for Nevada's question? [/B][/QUOTE]Uh, Dan? Please don't! Believe me, it really does hurt when I laugh!

Have a heart!