Sure looked to me like the BI call when the ring was snapped back up was right to me regardless of the talking idiots thought

This was not a BI. The goal was not completed as of 4-41 (NCAA of course).

Peace

Jeff is correct. It wasn't BI. The ball must pass all the way through the BASKET, which includes the cylinder AND the net. We've discuss it here earlier this season.

Once again, the idiot Packer didn't know the rule.

So is that an NCAA thing because I thought there was a change in FED where if the ring snaps back up while in contact with the ball it was BI? Maybe I'm just totally confused. I'm looking at 4.6.4 now and not sure how I am interpreting it....

Well, that's why I post so I can always keep learning....

This was a dunk. During a dunk, the player can legally place his hand in the cylinder and he can pull down on the rim.

It wasn't a situation where the rim was pulled down and hit a ball that was above the rim in the imaginary cylinder.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Mar 25th, 2005 at 09:31 PM]

I think I picture what your saying. Thanks.

I have no idea where my other thought came from. Too much Sam Adams last night I guess....

I think we need a game thread for each game, rather than 6 different posts for the same game! :D

I don't know... I'd be glad to see 10 or 12 posts celebrating the fact that DUKE LOST!!

Duke and NC State--ACC Dominance?
 

I thought the ACC such a great conference? What happened?

Peace

Officials got it right... Basket Interference per 4-4-2

NCAA Rule 4-4-2: Basket interference also occurs when a moveable ring is pulled down by a player so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position.

Ball was difintely in the cylinder and touched the ring while it was in the down position.

Rut: 4-41 is about jumpers. Even if you meant 4-4-1 it still does not apply as that is referring to a player touching the ball while in the cylinder. This did not happen.


BktBallref and Rut: You both say it is not BI because the try was not successful by rule. To the contrary it is the very fact that the try was not yet successful that kept the ball alive making Basket Interference the proper call by rule.

Daryl, the ball didn't contact the ring. The force of the ring jerking the net upwards forced the ball out. it was not BI.

But the game officials did not call BI. The table reported that the ball did not pass thru the basket and they awarded the Mich. St player with the rebound.

It couldn't be BI. The ball did not go thru the hoop.

Rule 4-31-1 says:

a. A live ball that is not a throw-in enters the basket from above and reamains in or passes through or

b. A free throw enters the basket from above and remains in or passes through.

Peace

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.

Juulie,

Why are you hatin'?

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

<b>Upon further review.......</b>

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

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

Looks like Preacher's original call be right.

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

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.

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

Yep, that was the one.

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." :D

"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? :confused: 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. .

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

I think you need to read the entire post again.
 

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

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. :)

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 :confused:

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

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.

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.