Great Offensive BI call in Duke game

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

Thanks to all for the clarification. Sorry for the confusion on my part. I thought the officials ruled it was basket Interference. I didn't hear the announcement to the contrary and I missed the replay while I was getting my NCAA rule book and looking up rule for what happened. Looking at the live play it looked to me that the ball and ring touched while the ring was in the down position.

I have now seen the replay in slow motion and I agree that what happened is not basket interference. The avenue Rut and BktBallRef were taking in their earlier posts is a lot clearer now. The officials were right in not awarding the goal per Rule 4-31-1.

Upon further review.......

Here's an article quoting Mike Kitts, the ref, re: the call. He said that the call actually was offensive BI.

http://www.freep.com/sports/michstat...e_20050326.htm

Looks like Preacher's original call be right.

[JRutledge]

JR,

That is not right. I know they did not have the benefit of the replay when the call was made. But that could not be BI by rule. The ball never completely went through the basket. Now of course the result would have been basically the same, but BI "technically" would not be right. Then again that is with the benefit of slow motion replay and seeing this play several times.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

That may have been what they called. But by rule, they didn't need it. The ball didn't pass all the way through the basket, therefore it's not a goal. We see players miss dunks in this fashion quite often. I've never seen it called BI.

One of them called traveling on a fast break where the player bobbled the ball and never had possession. Maybe this wan't the strongest crew with regard to rules knowledge.

Either way, at least they got the call right.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
One of them called traveling on a fast break where the player bobbled the ball and never had possession. Maybe this wan't the strongest crew with regard to rules knowledge.

Either way, at least they got the call right.

I noticed that as well. You are talking about the MSU player right? He did not even have the ball and I saw that call. I know I was watching on my couch in my cozy house, but I did not like that call either.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Yep, that was the one.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by jbduke

Juulie,

Why are you hatin'?

Congratulations to Michigan State and Coach Izzo on a well-earned win.

You know, I'm not sure why. I've always disliked Coach K, and for some reason I just never want to see them win. I suppose part of it is my inborn sympathy for the underdog, but Izzo isn't exactly an underdog. If feels good for the team I cheer for to win. With said inborn sympathy for the underdog, that doesn't happen often!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
You know, I'm not sure why. I've always disliked Coach K, and for some reason I just never want to see them win. I suppose part of it is my inborn sympathy for the underdog, but Izzo isn't exactly an underdog. If feels good for the team I cheer for to win. With said inborn sympathy for the underdog, that doesn't happen often!

Saw this in a story on ESPN.com this morning.

"You might think the Carolina faithful would show some ACC solidarity and root for the Wolfpack and Dookies, but you'd be dead wrong. The dome erupted at the final score from Austin.

Watching the game on a TV in the press area, the coach of the Carolina cheerleading squad remarked off the cuff to a group of reporters, "I'd root for Iraq against Duke."

[tomegun]

"He pulled the rim down," Kitts said. "The ball never went all the way through the net. The ball went back up through the net, and because he caused it to do that, it is offensive basket interference."

I think this is a contradiction. Like others have said, the ball did not go all the way through. To further simplify things, who has ever seen an offensive player cause the ball to come out when it is in the net on the way through?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by tomegun
"He pulled the rim down," Kitts said. "The ball never went all the way through the net. The ball went back up through the net, and because he caused it to do that, it is offensive basket interference."

I think this is a contradiction. Like others have said, the ball did not go all the way through. To further simplify things, who has ever seen an offensive player cause the ball to come out when it is in the net on the way through?

Why is it a contradiction? Kitts said that the ball didn't go through and others said exactly the same thing. Where's the contradiction in that?

I've seen offensive players cause the ball to come out after it was in the net twice this year--once in an NBA game and once in an NCAA game. Both times the players were swinging on the rim and the ball hit a head/shoulder before going completely through and rebounded straight back up and out. Both times the officials caught it too, and ruled no basket.

In this play, it doesn't really matter anyway. No matter what they ruled, no basket was the correct call- whether it was BI or not going all the way through. .

[Snake~eyes]

Can someone describe the play in question for me? I read the article but I'm still not getting it.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
Can someone describe the play in question for me? I read the article but I'm still not getting it.

Rebound came off and was dunked on the put-back. The ball backrimmed and swirled with about 3/4 of the ball in the basket as the rim was down. When the rim was released the ball caught in the net and flew out.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I noticed that as well. You are talking about the MSU player right? He did not even have the ball and I saw that call. I know I was watching on my couch in my cozy house, but I did not like that call either.

Peace

Mike Kitts made this call too. He was the R on the game.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by JRutledge
JR,

That is not right. I know they did not have the benefit of the replay when the call was made. But that could not be BI by rule. The ball never completely went through the basket. Now of course the result would have been basically the same, but BI "technically" would not be right. Then again that is with the benefit of slow motion replay and seeing this play several times.

Peace

Rut: this is the second time you have linked the definition of successful goal with basket interference. That is faulty reasoning. They are two mutually exclusive rules. Let me explain the Technicalities.

Whether or not the ball went completely through the basket has nothing to do with whether the basket interference rule has been violated.

What is required is;
1: any player touching the ball while it is within the cylinder with the ring as the lower base (ie. above the ring, on the ring, within the ring, or a player raches up through the ring to prevent ball from entering the basket.

2: If rim is pulled down AND ball touches rim in the down position. Just the pulling down of the rim does not automatically qualify as BI...the ball must touch the rim.

If neither of those two happened then another rule applies. In this case the ball came back out the top of the cylinder. Only thing now left to decide is was the goal successful or not by rule. It did not clear the net therefore no goal.

Jurassic already said that whatever was called the officials got the result part right in not awarding the goal and the team that got the posession of the rebound retained control.

What concerns me is that Kitt's explanation of why they ruled basket interference is faulty (see quote in another post and in Free Press article Jurassic linked to). He misapplied the rule. If the player did not touch the ball or cause the rim to touch the ball it is nothing. What he described was just no goal because it did not meet the rule to deem it sucessful.

Quoting a wrong rule as evidence for getting the right result still causes me to question an officials rules knowledge. Our right calls should be a result of applying the right rule to the situation and if we explain the rule we should be accurate.

Kitt applied the wrong rule to the situation, then misquoted the rule he applied to make it say something it doesn't.

If someone can show me in the NCAA rules where just pulling down on the rim without it touching the ball constitutes BI then I will accept the ruling Kitt gave.




[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Mar 27th, 2005 at 12:23 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
...
What concerns me is that Kitt's explanation of why ...

Kitt applied the wrong rule to the situation, then misquoted the rule he applied to make it say something it doesn't.

If someone can show me in the NCAA rules where just pulling down on the rim without it touching the ball constitutes BI then I will accept the ruling Kitt gave.


[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Mar 27th, 2005 at 12:23 AM] [/B]

That is an outstanding post! The only thing that could have made it better is if you would have gotten the referee's last name right, Mr. Lon

And I'm quite sure that Rut knows the def of BI has nothing to do with how a goal is made. I think that he was just jumping around in his thoughts when he posted that sentence in the middle of the paragraph.
Of course, I won't speak for him. I just have confidence in him.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long


Rut: this is the second time you have linked the definition of successful goal with basket interference. That is faulty reasoning. They are two mutually exclusive rules. Let me explain the Technicalities.

I think you need to go back and read this entire discussion. It is clear you are not reading the entire discussion. I have in no way linked anything together. I just stated that BI could not be the call because no parts of BI took place on the dunk. The ball just did not go completely through the basket and a goal cannot be scored by rule if the ball does not go through the net.

Not sure what you are talking about.

Peace