Hey everybody. I'm off to a future stars/officiating camp this weekend. My shoes are shined, I'm making a list of my goals for the camp, and I'm spending some time with the books. Does anyone have some "tricks of the trade" to watch for in regard to play around and above the rim? I worked my first 10 or so varsity games this year and didn't have to deal with either rule as of yet. I'm guessing I'll see some of it this weekend (word is the games are "all star" games with little defense). Anyway, just looking for some helpful hints besides "know the rules".

And as long as we're on the subject, I'd be interested in the "interpretation" issues. A couple of times in the tourney, it seemed clear to me that there was offensive BI, but it wasn't called. Both times announcers agreed with me, which makes me wonder what I don't know. Obviously, the refs who did those games have more experience and training in play above the rim, and I feel certain the plays were seen and comprehended, so I conclude that there must be something about BI that I don't know. What are the nuances?

Okafor's put-back dunk last night was DEFINITELY basket interference. I think sometimes it's hard to judge angles from T or C on those really close ones, though.

I think one of the most significant nuances of the rule is that in-the-cylinder interference only occurs (in most leagues) if the ball is touched. Touching of the basket is inteference, on the other hand, only if the ball is on or in the basket. I think there may be a difference between college and the pros whether touching a ball that is touching the side, but not top, of the rim is interference. Some hs officials that I am friendly with say there is something of a debate where the cylinder is -- whether it's the inside of the rim or the outside. From the perspective from which I usually watch games -- behind the time table, this is an extraordinarily difficult play to have any chance of seeing well. In junior varsity, though, there isn't as much play above the rim. I think it's one of the few plays where good position can put you out of position, particularly in leagues that have to play sometimes with opaque or partially obscured backboards. I did not think the replay on the Okafor putback was conclusive.

The rulebook clearly says the outside of the ring. Just tell them to read R9-11-2. That says that the cylinder has the ring as it's base. In other words, the ring is part of the cylinder. It's that simple. If BI was only inside the ring, then the ring obviously <b>couldn't</b> be part of the base.

I don't understand what you're saying here. In the play under examination, it appeared very obvious that the ball was in the cylinder, and the player touched it there. So why do you say "only occurs if the ball is touched."?

Juulie, he means that it's not a violation to touch the rim if the ball is in the cylinder. It's only a violation if you touch the ball while the ball is in the cylinder.

On the other hand, it's a violation to touch the ball or the rim if the ball is on the rim or in the basket.

A college official I talked to this season about a BI no-call (where an offensive player tapped a ball in that may have been in the cylinder) told me that his criteria included whether the ball was falling off of the rim. In particular, from the T he could see daylight between the ball and the rim, and the ball was clearly falling out of the cylinder, it looked legit to him, so he passed on the call.

I noted that his perspective and mine were quite different. I was sitting about 5 rows up in the bleachers FTL extended. The ball was falling out toward the T. I thought it was a lot closer to (actually still in) the cylinder than he did. I don't know how you could possibly ensure a good angle on that call every time. Perhaps seeing daylight and seeing it falling out of the cylinder are the best criteria that could be employed to judge such a play?

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Apr 6th, 2004 at 07:25 PM]

Okay, so if the ball is above the rim (not touching) and at least partially in the cylinder, no one can touch it. Right?

But I've seen quite a bit of it where there's a putback, but the ball was clearly not out of the cylinder. My question is, what is the interpretation that allows these to be no-called?

None that I can think of. Put-backs while the ball is still in the cylinder are ILLEGAL, unless there's some exception I don't know about.

There's no "interpretation" that says to no-call this type of play. However, most officials will tell you that they don't want to guess on that call. If they're not sure that the ball is still in the cylinder, they're not going to blow it dead.

And as somebody else mentioned, it can be tough to judge from the floor, especially if the ball rebounds directly toward you.

I have no real basis for what I am about to say other than a gut feeling. I would tend to believe the reason that the offensive BI is not called unless it is very obvious is that there is really not a big advantage gained. Yes I know there are 2 pts scored, but if the ball is in the cylinder allready there is a chance it is going to go in anyway. However the same infraction by the defense has more of a detrimental impact on the play. Defensive BI certainly takes away the opportunity to score. I realize that the offense touching the ball in the cylinder is an advantage due to the fact that the defense can't touch it in there, but I just feel that before the offense gets called for it, Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder would be able to see it...IMHO

"The rulebook clearly says the outside of the ring. Just tell them to read R9-11-2. That says that the cylinder has the ring as it's base. In other words, the ring is part of the cylinder. It's that simple. If BI was only inside the ring, then the ring obviously couldn't be part of the base."

Interesting -- that's clear as day. As it turns out, I don't tell these guys anything, though -- just listen. I'm the wannabe in that group. I probably misunderstood since the rule is so clear.

cmatthew, I disagree.
The defense is prohibited from going up and ensuring that a ball "in the cylinder" does not going in, but the offense (under your interp) can go up and ensure it goes in. If it's not an obvious call, then the ball has as good a chance of not going in as it does of going in (or more). The theory behind only calling the obvious is that if you don't know whether it was in the cylinder, you shouldn't call it. If you don't know for sure if the guy traveled, you don't call it. And if you don't know for sure whether she carried it, you don't call it.
There is surely a big advantage gained by it, however, so I can't possibly see that as a valid reason. Not that it's not used, I just disagree with it.

This is a situation where allowing the Lead to make that call could really help becasue the lead... is well RIGHT there. Of course that means the C would have to drop his attention to some of the under the basket type stuff.