Basket Interference?

RoyalsCoach · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 26, 2004, 01:03pm

Illinois vs Wisconsin on Saturday. Illinois player went to dunk and was fouled in the act of shooting. The dunk missed and bounced in the air. Meanwhile the dunker was hanging on the rim to protect himself. The ball came down through the basket. The basket was ruled good and one free throw was awarded. Wisconsin questioned the ruling as it seemed quite obvious he was hanging on the rim when the ball went through The officials called both coaches over to explain the situation. Of course the announcers were no help, they wondered why it was not goaltending. Is this basket interference? I am not familiar with NCAA rules. Are they different than FED?

[Edited by RoyalsCoach on Jan 26th, 2004 at 12:06 PM]

bob jenkins · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 26, 2004, 01:43pm

Quote:

Originally posted by RoyalsCoach
Illinois vs Wisconsin on Saturday. Illinois player went to dunk and was fouled in the act of shooting. The dunk missed and bounced in the air. Meanwhile the dunker was hanging on the rim to protect himself. The ball came down through the basket. The basket was ruled good and one free throw was awarded. Wisconsin questioned the ruling as it seemed quite obvious he was hanging on the rim when the ball went through The officials called both coaches over to explain the situation. Of course the announcers were no help, they wondered why it was not goaltending. Is this basket interference? I am not familiar with NCAA rules. Are they different than FED?

[Edited by RoyalsCoach on Jan 26th, 2004 at 12:06 PM]

As described, this should have been BI -- cancel the basket and award two throws.

ChampaignBlue · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 27, 2004, 05:41pm

Ball hit back of rim and went up, came down dead center through the basket. Rim being pulled down had no effect whatsoever on the goal. Does that matter? I would understand that if it was an intentional act no goal but since the reason that he was hanging there was because he was fouled from behind and was legally protecting himself I would think no BI.

BktBallRef · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 27, 2004, 06:21pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChampaignBlue
Ball hit back of rim and went up, came down dead center through the basket. Rim being pulled down had no effect whatsoever on the goal. Does that matter? I would understand that if it was an intentional act no goal but since the reason that he was hanging there was because he was fouled from behind and was legally protecting himself I would think no BI.

No matter why he's hangin' out, it's BI.

ChampaignBlue · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 27, 2004, 07:31pm

"No matter why he's hangin' out, it's BI."

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I really don't know. It was clear that his hanging on the rim had no effect at all on the ball going in and he was legally hanging on the rim in response to an opponants act. When you rule BI are you not ruling in favor of the team that caused the player to be hanging on the rim in the first place, ie the offending team? I just do softball now but ASA has a rule that no rule shall be interpreted to give the advantage to the offending team. Does NCAA or Fed have a similar rule?

BktBallRef · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 27, 2004, 08:57pm

We don't have the option of setting aside the rule. The rule doesn't say that the player can hang on the rim and not be called for BI if there's someone under him. It simply says he can hang to avoid injury.

9-11-1
A player shall not commit basket interference. Basket interference occurs when a player:
Touches the ball or basket, (including the net), when the ball is on or within either basket.

Based on the rule, this is BI.

ChampaignBlue · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 01:26pm

See, ya learn something new every day.

DownTownTonyBrown · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 02:15pm

Saw Basket Interference call made Monday late evening during the Brigham Young vs New Mexico game.

Call was made by the lead which I thought was rather unusual... (shouldn't be looking up to the basket, should he?)

From his position it was a good call. But... upon slo-mo replay you see that there were two BIs and that the one which got called would not have happened if the first BI hadn't occurred.

I forget how NM's shot got to the rim (lay-up or outside shot) but the ball was in the cylinder above the rim. As it is going down into the basket NM crashes the board for the potential rebound. BYU's big guy (something starting with an A) slaps from below the ring and through the net, hits the ball (it appears the ball was going to go through the basket). The ball is still partially in the cylinder but now fully above the ring when it hits NM's hands that are straight up and slightly outside the cylinder. Lead calls BI on NM (Garner or something); no points; BYU ball.

The BYU interference ocurred on the side of the basket away from the lead official and the NM interference was on the same side as the Lead so it was easy for him to see. The funny part is that NM would not have interfered if not for BYU's interference knocking the ball out of the basket.

I'm not sure BYU's interference could have been recognized without slo-mo replay - the ball was about 1/4 of the way into the basket and it could have been interpretted to have hit the rim and bounced out... into NM's upright hand. Perhaps that is why none of the outside officials called anything.

As the level of play increases the decisions need to be sharper.

DJ · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 02:34pm

There is a lot of difference between slow mo and the real life experience. I just hate it when announcers use slow mo and after the fact to criticize a real time official. It stinks!

Dan_ref · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 02:41pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Saw Basket Interference call made Monday late evening during the Brigham Young vs New Mexico game.

Call was made by the lead which I thought was rather unusual... (shouldn't be looking up to the basket, should he?)

From his position it was a good call. But... upon slo-mo replay you see that there were two BIs and that the one which got called would not have happened if the first BI hadn't occurred.

I forget how NM's shot got to the rim (lay-up or outside shot) but the ball was in the cylinder above the rim. As it is going down into the basket NM crashes the board for the potential rebound. BYU's big guy (something starting with an A) slaps from below the ring and through the net, hits the ball (it appears the ball was going to go through the basket). The ball is still partially in the cylinder but now fully above the ring when it hits NM's hands that are straight up and slightly outside the cylinder. Lead calls BI on NM (Garner or something); no points; BYU ball.

The BYU interference ocurred on the side of the basket away from the lead official and the NM interference was on the same side as the Lead so it was easy for him to see. The funny part is that NM would not have interfered if not for BYU's interference knocking the ball out of the basket.

I'm not sure BYU's interference could have been recognized without slo-mo replay - the ball was about 1/4 of the way into the basket and it could have been interpretted to have hit the rim and bounced out... into NM's upright hand. Perhaps that is why none of the outside officials called anything.

As the level of play increases the decisions need to be sharper.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

bsktball_ref · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 02:57pm

Hey other BktBallRef, correct me if I am wrong here. (I'm sure you would anyway.)

By rule 4-16 he was dunking "Dunking or stuffing is the driving, forcing, pushing or attempting to force a ball through the basket with the hands"

Rule 9-11 (basket interference) has an exception. "Dunking or stuffing is legeal and is not basket interference"

Now, I have rules to back up the call. No BI. The player gets the call and bucket he deserves and no rules were ignored or set aside.

Furthermore, as far as the rule 9-11 is concerned, The player violated
Art 1. "player touches the ball or basket" but as part of a dunk attempt. =no BI
Articles 2, 3, & 4 were not violated in teh given scenario.

No BI. Correct me if I am wrong.

Smitty · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 03:18pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bsktball_ref
Now, I have rules to back up the call. No BI. The player gets the call and bucket he deserves and no rules were ignored or set aside.

Furthermore, as far as the rule 9-11 is concerned, The player violated
Art 1. "player touches the ball or basket" but as part of a dunk attempt. =no BI
Articles 2, 3, & 4 were not violated in teh given scenario.

No BI. Correct me if I am wrong.

When does a dunk end? Does a dunk end when it's clear the ball doesn't go in during the attempted dunk, as in the case with the original post "The dunk missed and bounced in the air." or does the dunk end when the player lets go of the rim? I think an argument can be made either way, but I would initally lean toward the dunk ending as soon as it didn't immediately enter the basket and bounced up.

Jurassic Referee · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 04:02pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bsktball_ref
Hey other BktBallRef, correct me if I am wrong here. (I'm sure you would anyway.)

By rule 4-16 he was dunking "Dunking or stuffing is the driving, forcing, pushing or attempting to force a ball through the basket with the hands"

Rule 9-11 (basket interference) has an exception. "Dunking or stuffing is legeal and is not basket interference"

Now, I have rules to back up the call. No BI. The player gets the call and bucket he deserves and no rules were ignored or set aside.

Furthermore, as far as the rule 9-11 is concerned, The player violated
Art 1. "player touches the ball or basket" but as part of a dunk attempt. =no BI
Articles 2, 3, & 4 were not violated in teh given scenario.

No BI. Correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong.

You're quoting NFHS rules, so take a look at casebook play 10.3.4SitB(a). It's exactly the same as the initial post on this thread.It says if the player's hanging on the rim to avoid injury,and the ball is in the basket or on the ring, it's basket interference.Also, take a look at casebook play 9.11.1SitB. That one says that, if the play is the same, but the player is not hanging on the rim for safety purposes, it's still basket interference and it's also a T.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 28th, 2004 at 03:07 PM]

ChampaignBlue · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 04:46pm

Is the case book on line?

bsktball_ref · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 28, 2004, 04:49pm

While I appreciate your being blunt, your logic fails. I am sticking with NF rules here.

It is a stretch to say that casebook play 10.3.4SitB(a) is "exactly the same as the initial post on this thread".

The initial thread states that this is a dunk attempt. I'll quote, "A1 jumps for a try near the basket but loses his/her balance after releasing the ball. A1 grasps the basket to prevent injury. The ball: (a) is in the basket or on the ring while A1 is hanging on the ring."

The aforementioned situation is not a generic "try." By definition it is a dunk. And in the casebook example he grasps the ring following the try. In the exaple here, he is grasping the ring as part of a dunk or stuff. And--"Dunking or stuffing is legeal and is not basket interference" I don't believe that the spirit of the rule is ignored when the initial part of the dunk fails.

If you use your logic then you open a new problem- How are we going to decide when a dunk is successful? If it is not perfectly clean, should we call BI everytime? Please.

I don't mind being wrong. I have been wrong before. I would like to feel better about your arguement before I decide that it was done wrong here and before I need to face this decision in a HS game.