:confused: All right here's your tough BI call for the week. A couple of the guys I ref with were discussing this, let's see what all of you come up with. (NHFS Rules)

1. Player A1 is Out of Bounds. Shoots the ball like a shot to the hoop. It hits the rim but does not go in. While ON the rim A2 taps it in. Good??? No Good.

2. Same set up, but B1 knocks it out. BI??? not BI????

Before answering remember that the rule for BI is the player is making a shot. However, because he's out of bounds he cannot make a valid attempt.

Have fun with this one.

It's BI in both cases. Offensive BI in #1-no basket and a spot throw-in to team B at closest spot to violation. Defensive BI in #2- score 2 points(not 3), and B gets the ball anywhere on the endline for a throw-in.

Casebook play 9.11.2SitC. Been in there forever.

Might want to re-think this. BI has nothing to do with being a try for goal. Read the definition carefully. It doesn't matter how the ball got on the rim or in the cylinder. If it's live and touched while on the basket or in the cylinder, it's BI. Remember, it doesn't matter how it got there.

No, no, no.

This is only true in the world of Billy Packer.

In the real world, the basket interference rules are in effect at all times. The only time that shot/not shot matters is for scoring three points for BI during a three-point shot.

Oh, if only you hadn't written that last sentence.

Consider A1 in a corner of the frontcourt attempting to throw a high arcing pass over the ring to A2 in the other corner. B1 jumps and deflects the pass just after it leaves A1's hands. The pass now falls short of its intended destination and ends up bouncing around on the ring. B2 jumps up and swats the ball away while it is in the cylinder.
Clearly, you don't have a try/shot here, but you do have defensive BI and award THREE points. And it doesn't matter whether B1 jumped from the 2 or 3 point area before he touched the ball.

I have to disagree, Nevada.

5.2.1 C specifically covers legal touching by an opponent. BI is illegal touching.

Also, 5-2-1 states "a successful try, tap, or thrown ball that does not touch the floor, a teammate, or official, from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot 9-inch line counts three points." This cannot, by rule, be a successful basket - 5-1 requires the ball to actually pass through the hoop and net for this to happen. BI is, rather, an awarded basket and does not fall under the definition above (the alley-oops).

In addition, the BI/goaltending penalty section clearly states that the opponents are awarded "one point if during a free throw, three points if during a three-point try and two points in any other case." 4-40 makes a tap the same as a try, but doesn't make this case the same as a try. If it was the intent of the committee to change the BI penalty when they changed this ruling, they need to go back and corrrect the book.

Interesting point, Mark. I was assuming that the change on the 3-pointer would carry over to the BI rule too. Perhaps that is not the case. Thanks to you, I am now uncertain about what I wrote above. You $*%^*&^(*%^$!!! :)

I wonder what some of the other guys think.

I think that the rule change effectively makes any throw that goes in a try. BI on a throw from outside the arc that hits rim and stays in the cylinder should still be three - otherwise you take away one potential point which is never the intent of the rules. The rules do not reward the violating team.

I agree - the key here being that the throw goes in. When BI is committed, the ball is dead, and even if the ball goes in, it is not a goal. You need to have a three-point try in order to count three points for BI/GT.

I would argue that the award for BI is effectively a goal which makes it a try once BI is committed by the defense.

You cannot penalize a team when offended against. Not giving A the chance for the ball to fall in and get 3 points, and thereby taking away a potential point, is effectively a penalty against A. B committed the violation, so the award to A should be three points.

A shot needs to be a try/tap at the beginning of the shot - you can't make one retroactively.

As to the rules not penalizing the offended team, I think that happens from time to time. I seem to recall the discussion about a sub coming off the bench and (cleanly) blocking a last second shot when the team is down 3. Technically, you have one T, the ball is dead - oops, the team that violated got a pretty big advantage there.

Don't open that can-o-worms again. ;)

It was not actually decided with any authority. Several took positions, some based on common sense, others based on the letter of the rule.

Since it appears that I am not backed by letter, am I to assume you are accusing me of having common sense?

Hey guys, what am I missing? If A1 is OOB, I have a violation. Ball goes to Team B.

Whew...I'm glad SOMEONE said it...maybe they changed the rule? :)