Great Offensive BI call in Duke game

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by JRutledge

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

Rut,

Before you read the rest of this post I want you to know am satisfied that you meant to say there was an ALTERNATE ruling that better fit what happened on the play other than BI. The above wording shows you are having two separate trains of thought. 1.) Not BI because... AND 2.)Not a goal Because...)

Forgive me if I was being too grammatically correct. When paragraphs are constructed correctly the sentences agree with each other. The first sentence usually sets the theme of the paragraph and any following sentences linked to it modifies the theme.

Example:
In your 1st post; "This is not BI. The goal was not completed as of 4-41 (NCAA of course)."

In your 2nd post : "It couldn't be BI. The ball did not go through the hoop."

In your 4th post (to Jurassic) "But that could not be BI by rule. The ball never completely went through the basket."

There is a cause effect relationship by the structure of these sentences. You linked "not going through the basket" as the reason not to call BI.

Additionally, the title to the thread is GREAT OFFENSIVE BI CALL IN DUKE GAME. This implies that the thread starter believed that Basket interference WAS what the referees ruled. I read your posts to mean that the officials were wrong to call BI and the only reason you were giving is BECAUSE you said the ball never went completely through the basket. Only when Nevadaref said BI was not what they ruled did I start to surmise you comments were two separate thoughts. Then Jurassic and others quote referee Kitts who said he did call BI. Now I am thinking you were confused again. So I posted again in hopes you would clarify your statements.

Thank you for doing so. I am on the same page as you are in this matter.

PS. As Nevada pointed out I just wish I hadn't lost my "s" when I spelled Kitts' name in an earlier post.

[JRutledge]

I quoted 4-31-1 word for word if you read the entire thread.

This rule has nothing to do with BI. I do not care what the poster's title of the thread is as it relates to my response. The basket did not go through the hoop. Nothing about the ball not going through the hoop could be considered BI. The ball was not touched by a player or the rim. The net and the force of the net prevented the ball from going through the hoop. According to 4-31-1, you cannot have a goal if the ball does not completely pass through the basket and net. That was all I was saying. I think you caught part of the post and drew a conclusion. Oh well.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Rut,
I had a pretty good idea what you meant all along, although you did jam two separate thoughts into the same paragraph a few times in this thread as the preacher has pointed out. It is easy for me to see how he misunderstood you.

I just chalked it up to to informal manner in which we write on this forum. Afterall, this isn't a college writing class. Although, with Juulie, Chuck, and some of the others around I often wonder.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

Not having seen the play in question, I'm curious about the "call" aspect of making this call. It sounds like there was a whistle on this play? If so, and it's not BI, then why would there be a whistle? If it's simply a matter of no basket because the ball didn't go all the way through, then doesn't it matter a lot whether or not the call was offensive BI? In addition to canceling the bucket, BI awards the ball to the other team. I must be missing something

In the instances you mention, how did the officials announce their rulings? With a whistle? With a wave off gesture and a "play on?"

[Nevadaref]

After the ball popped out of the basket, Michigan State's Paul Davis grabbed the rebound. At this time one of the officials blew his whistle and stopped play. The three officials huddled and then the R went over to the table where he had a brief word with the table crew and both coaches. Finally, he gave the no basket signal and play was resumed with a throw-in by Michigan State from the endline in the backcourt, POI in other words.

Why was the whistle blown at all? I can only surmise that this official wasn't sure if they should be counting a goal or not and wanted to get it straight right then.
There really is no reason for a stoppage.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
After the ball popped out of the basket, Michigan State's Paul Davis grabbed the rebound. At this time one of the officials blew his whistle and stopped play. The three officials huddled and then the R went over to the table where he had a brief word with the table crew and both coaches. Finally, he gave the no basket signal and play was resumed with a throw-in by Michigan State from the endline in the backcourt, POI in other words.

Why was the whistle blown at all? I can only surmise that this official wasn't sure if they should be counting a goal or not and wanted to get it straight right then.
There really is no reason for a stoppage.

As a guess,I would say they stopped play to make absolutely sure that the scorer knew not to count the basket on that play. Not a bad idea imo.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Not having seen the play in question, I'm curious about the "call" aspect of making this call. It sounds like there was a whistle on this play? If so, and it's not BI, then why would there be a whistle? If it's simply a matter of no basket because the ball didn't go all the way through, then doesn't it matter a lot whether or not the call was offensive BI? In addition to canceling the bucket, BI awards the ball to the other team. I must be missing something

In the instances you mention, how did the officials announce their rulings? With a whistle? With a wave off gesture and a "play on?"

In the plays above, BI was called in both of them because of physical contact with the ball while the ball was inside the net. The proper procedure with offensive BI is a whistle and a spot throw-in. You're right in that if BI is not called because the ball just spun back up and out without being touched, then there shouldn't be a whistle--- unless there might be some confusion by the scorer as to whether to count the basket or not. In that case, it's not a bad idea to make absolutely sure that the scorer gets it right.