If you watch SportsCenter, or any other morning highlight show, you've seen it by now. If you haven't seen it, here's the play. Duncan jumps to dunk the ball into his basket. He carries the ball into the cylinder; but before it enters the basket, Stoudemire is able to block the shot and knock it away.

I don't really care to discuss this in terms of NBA rules. (The announcers made a big deal of saying it was legal, although I'm not completely convinced.) Let's talk NCAA and FED.

Is it legal for a defender to touch a ball that the offensive player has carried into the cylinder? Does the ruling change if the offensive player's hand is no longer in contact with the ball? Here's the FED's "exception" to the BI rule:

In the play last night, Stoudemire's hand was not in contact with the ball outside the cylinder, and then continuing into the cylinder. He reached into the cylinder after the ball was already there and then touched the ball.

So what's the ruling? Legal, b/c the ball was legally carried into the cylinder? Or BI, b/c the contact was not initially outside the cylinder?

Chuck
I see it different from you. Stoudemire hand was outside the cylinder his wrist was bent backward at the cylinder where he met Duncan with the ball. I say it was a clean block.

Chuck,

from the one slo-mo replay angle it showed last night, it looked as if Stoudemire did contact it prior to it entering the cylinder, and the force of Duncan's momentum carried his hand into the cylinder. Split-second reaction watching last night, even in a Fed or NCAA game, no call. Duncan was going for the stuff, so flight of ball hadn't been determined (never left Duncan's hand).

Basket interference by the defense. The exception to the BI rule applies <b>only and solely</b> to the player trying to dunk. As there is <b>no</b> rule saying that they don't also apply, The BI restrictions still must apply to the other 9 players on the floor.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that thought about that possibility. I guess my initial reaction the first time I saw it was it was a great block. But the more I saw it the more I got to thinking like Chuck - Stoudemire's hand was in the cylinder, so why wouldn't it be BI? If I was there and had to call the play immediately, I would have to say great block. I'm not sure if the defense should be penalized if the offense is contacting the ball in that same area. I thought the intent of the GT/BI rules were to keep players from just standing around the basket swatting balls around like a goaltender in hockey (remember that sport?). So if the rules allow an offensive player in the cylinder in this instance (a dunk), why can't the defense be allowed to block? Maybe this is one of those "if the rules don't disallow it, it must be legal" vs. "if the rules don't specify it, then it's illegal" arguments.

Well, I just watched it again on ESPN, and I disagree. The ball had broken the cylinder that has the ring as its base before Stoudamire touched it.

But that's irrelevant, really. I'd like to discuss the play the way I described it, even if it didn't happen precisely that way.

If Stoudamire didn't touch it until it was already in the cylinder, do you guys think it's legal or BI?

MM, this is exactly the thought that ran through my head. If the ball got there legally, maybe it's legal for the defender to touch it too. But after reading the rule, I really think it's BI.

While I agree that it's BI, I disagree with this bit, JR. Read the exception again. It doesn't stipulate who is touching the ball as it gets carried into the cylinder. All it says is that if you're touching the ball outside the cylinder and then you continue to touch it as it enters the cylinder, it's not BI.

So if Stoudamire had touched it before Duncan brought it into the cylinder, I think the exception would apply to both of them, no?

In this instance, I say no BI. My interpretation on this would be that IF the momentum carried his hand into the cylinder, you can't penalize him for the good defensive play.

It is funny how I was thinking the same thing as I watched the replay over and over again. I still think that without a specific interpretation, I think you cannot have GT or BI on a dunk. This is just one man's opinion. I can see not everyone agrees.

Peace

I will say BI.

When does a dunk attempt turn into a shot? Does the ball have to be out of the dunker's hand before this happens? If not, then the actual call should be goal tending. You would have all elements necessary: 1) shot attempt 2) downward flight 3) above the rim 4) with a chance to go in.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

You don't need a try for BI to occur.

If it's in the cylinder it can't be GT.

If touched outside the cylinder the try must be in flight to be GT, which it is not because it's a dunk.



[Edited by Dan_ref on May 31st, 2005 at 11:57 AM]

It seems obvious that that's the intent of the rule. But the wording is poor, as usual. Just taking the rule with the words as written, Chuck's right that if the defender was touching the ball before it entered the cylinder, it's legal for that touching to continue. I think we can let the rules committee off the hook, though, since the chances of this happening in a Fed game are probably about 99.99 against.

I'd be interested in hearing if the NCAA wording and general interp would be different.

Here's the NBA rule from their website. It would appear that if the ball was in the cylinder, it's a violation even when blocking a dunk attempt according to "b". On the replay I saw (during the game right after it happened), it did not appear to me that the ball was in the cylinder when blocked.

RULE NO. 11-BASKETBALL INTERFERENCE-GOALTENDING

Section I-A Player Shall Not:
a. Touch the ball or the basket ring when the ball is using the basket ring as its lower base.
EXCEPTION: If a player near his own basket has his hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if his contact with the ball continues after the ball enters the cylinder, or if, in such action, he touches the basket.
b. Touch the ball when it is above the basket ring and within the imaginary cylinder.
c. For goaltending to occur, the ball, in the judgment of the official, must have a chance to score.
d. During a field goal attempt, touch a ball after it has touched any part of the backboard above ring level, whether the ball is considered on its upward or downward flight.
e. During a field goal attempt, touch a ball after it has touched the backboard below the ring level and while the ball is on its upward flight.
f. Trap the ball against the face of the backboard. (To be a trapped ball, three elements must exist simultaneously. The hand, the ball and the backboard must all occur at the same time. A batted ball against the backboard is not a trapped ball.)
g. Touch any live ball from within the playing area that is on its downward flight with an opportunity to touch the basket ring. This is considered to be a "field goal attempt" or trying for a goal.
h. Touch the ball at any time with a hand which is through the basket ring.
i. Vibrate the rim or backboard so as to cause the ball to make an unnatural bounce.
PENALTY: If the violation is at the opponent's basket, the offended team is awarded two points, if the attempt is from the two point zone and three points if it is from the three point zone. The crediting of the score and subsequent procedure is the same as if the awarded score has resulted from the ball having gone through the basket, except that the official shall hand the ball to a player of the team entitled to the throw-in. If the violation is at a team's own basket, no points can be scored and the ball is awarded to the offended team at the free throw line extended on either sideline. If there is a violation by both teams, play shall be resumed by a jump ball between any two opponents at the center circle.

I have a question.

Even if it is BI, who would call it?

I know I wouldn't. There are many people of different levels that would of had a foul.

The popcorn guy? ;)

NFHS Rule 9 SECTION 11 BASKET INTERFERENCE
...
EXCEPTION: In Articles 1 or 2, if <FONT COLOR=RED><B>a player</B></FONT> has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder...

I fail to see what's unclear about this. No BI. The exception says "a player", not a specific player. If the defender had his hand in contact with the ball before it entered the cylinder, his hand may legally remain in contact with it even if it enters the cylinder. The shooter doesn't get a free bucket for being able to push the blocker's hand over the rim.

I agree with Camron. The NFHS rule does not specify the offensive player. It says "a player."

The NBA rule does however specify the offensive player.

The NFHS certainly does specify the offensive player- right at the end of the EXCEPTION in R4-6.

The NFHS rule,as part of the EXCEPTION, very explicitly states: <b>"Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference"</b>. The whole EXCEPTION, as I read it, therefore relates <b>only</b> to someone trying to dunk or stuff the ball. If they wanted the EXCEPTION to relate to all of the players on the floor, they wouldn't have had to put that clarification at the end. It would be extraneous and wouldn't be needed at all.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 31st, 2005 at 02:37 PM]

Nope, not buying it. It doesn't say that the exception is just for the offensive player. If blocking a dunk attempt were illegal, they would have specified the offensive player only, just as the NBA rule does. The last statement is simply saying that dunking /stuffing is legal, nothing more, nothing less.

If an offensive player is allowed to dunk w/o committing BI, then there's no reason that a defender shouldn't be allowed to block that dunk w/o committing BI.

[Edited by BktBallRef on May 31st, 2005 at 02:47 PM]

Yabut......the rules <b>don't</b> say that.

Rule 4-6-2 <b>does</b> say that it's BI and there's nuthin' in the EXCEPTION that says otherwise.

Gotta go with what's written imo.

LOL! Yeah, the rules do say that. You're just ignoring it and interpreting the way you want it to read.

<B>"...if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket."</b>

You're the one that says this is referring to the offensive player only. The rule book does not say offensive player only.

As I said on the previous page, I disagree with your interp precisely b/c I'm going only by what's written. What's written is:

1) a player (offense/defense not specified) is allowed to maintain contact with the ball in the cylinder if s/he first contacted the ball outside the cylinder; and

2) dunking is legal.

That's all that is written. There is no way logically to take that and read it as (1) applies only to the offensive player simply b/c (2) only applies to the offensive player.

You left the last sentence of your rules citation above completely out. You know, the part that clarifies to whom the EXCEPTION relates. Any special reason for doing that? :D

The part of the EXCEPTION that you left out specifically refers to the player dunking or stuffing the ball. Nowhere in that EXCEPTION is any other player on the floor referred to or mentioned. That's what you keep ignoring.

Guess we'll have to differ on this one.

There's no way to logically <b>not</b> take it that way imo. The EXCEPTION specifically mentions one player on the floor only- the player trying to dunk the ball. There's no reason to extrapolate that EXCEPTION to include the other 9 players. If they wanted it that way, there woulda been no need to add that last sentence of the EXCEPTION at all. It's in there for a reason imo.

Guess we'll have to disagree on this one too.

What if the player attempts to dunk the ball in his opponent's basket?

BI?

Or nuthin'?

I think the rules are trying to list two different scenerios - 1)a player (not specifically offense or defense) maintaining contact with the ball into the cylinder, and 2)dunking is legal. Obviously they added dunking because the act, in itself, is BI, and the game has changed to allow that act. If all they wanted to address was the offense and dunking, I think it would've been included as a single exception, not two different exceptions.

Now, to the realistic aspects of the call - have you ever made that call, or seen that call made in HS or NCAA, on a play just like the described play? I have never seen a BI call made when two players had contact with the ball. What if the offense goes up to dunk, the defense puts a hand on the ball outside the cylinder, the arm, hand, and part of the ball go into the cylinder, then come back out, and both players come down with the ball? I would suspect it would be hard to explain the BI call when everyone would be expecting a jump ball. In the case of the Duncan/Stoudamire play, there's even a little disagreement after many replays whether the defense had the ball before it entered the cylinder, so I would have been watching for a foul since it wasn't a clear-cut BI call.

I hope this would only happen in some men's rec league game somewhere, which is why I don't do rec leagues anymore.

I call BI, give 2 points to the opponent, and give it back to the player's team for a spot throw-in.

Then we will shooting T's somewhere, I'm sure of it. ;)

You are correct.

Who cares where it happens.

I'm just interested in hearing what he has to say on this play based on his interp of the rule.

What if the player attempts to dunk the ball in his opponent's basket?

BI?

Or nuthin'? [/B][/QUOTE]You have a warped l'il mind, Slappy.

The rule EXCEPTION of R4-6 can't apply because it's not a try- therefore it ain't a dunk attempt.

Ergo, if the player tries to dunk it in his opponent's basket, it should be BI as per R4-6-2 and the opponent gets 2 points. It doesn't have to be a try to be penalized- as pointed out in case book play 9.11.2SitC.

What if..... an opponent tried to block that un-dunk attempt at his own basket and both player's hands then entered the cylinder at the same time while contacting the ball? :eek:

Double violation- AP?

Obviously I don't agree.

ROTFLMAO! Nice.....

You have a warped l'il mind, Slappy.

The rule EXCEPTION of R4-6 can't apply because it's not a try- therefore it ain't a dunk attempt.

Ergo, if the player tries to dunk it in his opponent's basket, it should be BI as per R4-6-2 and the opponent gets 2 points. It doesn't have to be a try to be penalized- as pointed out in case book play 9.11.2SitC.

What if..... an opponent tried to block that un-dunk attempt at his own basket and both player's hands then entered the cylinder at the same time while contacting the ball? :eek:

Double violation- AP? [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't care about the exception, I already have "a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder..."

A player had his/her hand on the ball when it legally entered the cylinder. Why BI?

/edit: I forgot to mention BI does NOT require a try anyway/

btw I was thinking more in terms of the player slamming the ball off the back of his opponent's rim. 2 points for his opponent? Or nuthin'?

Or this: B1 jumps and grabs A1's air ball after it passes over the cylinder. B1's momentum carries the ball back over the cylinder and he lands.

BI and 2 points for A?

I very respectfully submit that is b/c you've never taught a logic class. The two statements have no logical connection, as written. If you're trying to judge the intent of the rules committee in your interpretation, that's a whole different kettle of fish. But as written all it says is you can maintain contact if it starts outside the cylinder and also that dunking is legal.

Suppose I said, "Dan and Woody may each have a piece of fruit, and Woody may have an orange." By your interpretation, you'd have to conclude that Dan's not allowed to have an orange. But really, that doesn't follow at all. All I've said is that you can each have some fruit, and I've clarified that you're allowed to eat the orange.


Whoa, whoa, whoa, there Tex!! Where in the world does a try fit in here? There's nothing anywhere in 4-6 -- including the EXCEPTION -- that mentions a try. Maybe this is the root of your whole misunderstanding. This rule and its exception never require that they be applied during a try.

Just as obvious: you are alone in the universe! :D

OK, I know this was NBA which leaves nearly anything open to interpretation.... But if this had been a game with Fed rules, from my perfect angle in my very comfortable chair I had the block clearly beginning before the ball was in the cylinder. How could you have BI? It looked like a clean block to me -- which by the way I hated because I am a Spurs fan!

Being a Nash superfan, I think you have nothing to complain about.

Yet.

The question is: assume that the ball is already touching the cylinder when the defender touches the ball. What do you have then?

Am I for the team making the dunk or the opponent?... Just kidding. Based on your question, I'd say, if I get it right, BI. If I miss it, GT.

[/QUOTE]

Being a Nash superfan, I think you have nothing to complain about.

Yet. [/B][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _________

Nash sure looked better in a Mavericks uniform!!!!!

I think you're giving the Fed way too much credit. It appears as though they once again haven't thought the whole thing through clearly. They had enough whatever to get the rule written adequately for dunking, but it didn't occur to them to consider any other meaning their words might have. Maybe that's unfair of me, but if they thought about defensive BI in the manner we're discussing, why not mention it one way or the other, or at least have a case play? I think they just didn't think about it.

I'm not sure it's an issue of thinking through things, but more like an issue of not writing down every little possible scenario. Who would've thought back in JR's day there would be dunking? ;) As plays and things become more prevalent, they address those issues with rules and cases. So that's probably why they don't have any case plays covering this yet, because I'm not sure before last night there were many people that have seen a similar play. But as players become more athletic and skilled they will probably have to address this in the future.

Now, I know I'm simply guessing here, but I wonder if the advantage/disadvantage theory would come into play somewhat. Using the same theory on a 3-sec. call - if an offensive player gets "trapped" in the lane by the defense, and is making an effort to get out, I would not call a violation. Similarly, if the offense caused the defender's hand/arm to enter the cylinder and there was already contact on the ball, I can't see penalizing the defense. However, if the defense puts their hand/arm in the cylinder on their own before contact with the ball, that seems more likely to be a violation. Now I know that's reading a lot more into it than what's written, but it seems a practical alternative and easier to explain, until there is specific direction from the NF and NCAA.

Of course, you're right about the sequence of how the thoughts occurred. They were addressing the stuffing and not the defensive contact with the stuffed ball, becuase, as you point out, that had probably never happened. Jurassic is reading that clearly into the rule as written, and it's one reasonable interpretation. But there could easily and reasonably be other interps, as others have pointed out, and that ambiguity needs now to be addressed. At least in the NBA and NCAA. Practically speaking, we're not going to see a lot of this in the NF for a while, I don't think. When my 6th grade girls games begin with a description of the stuffing and dunking exception and how it applies to the defense, I'll write a letter to the rules committee to get them off their duffs and get to work!

Agree or disagree, I'm just glad we have something to discuss besides crazy camp stories and experience surveys. :)

You're not interested in the underwater banana eating contest!?!

Any videos available?

I would like to be eating popcorn and sitting next to the evaluator when someone calls this one. :D

I understand this debate in theory but in reality I think it should be left alone.

Actually, there are several threads that I haven't even opened.

Three and a half pages since this morning, seems like you're not the only one. :)

JR is not right on this one and I can conclusively prove it.

Everyone please open your Simplified and Illustrated book to page 68 and look at diagrams 1 and 2 at the top of the page. They depict this exact play. The caption below quite clearly states (in part), "In (2), No. 4 forces the ball and the hand of No. 3 into the cylinder. There is no violation by either player and a held ball with alternating-possession results."

Now if I'd been around over the holiday weekend, I could have posted this earlier, but then everyone would have missed out on those 3 pages of fun.

For the record, I think Chuck's play, in which the defender doesn't touch the ball until AFTER it is already in the cylinder even though the offensive player hasn't released it yet during his dunk attempt, is basket interference. That rule should be amended. Simply make it so that the defender gets an exception to BI if the offensive player hasn't yet released the ball.

Nice try, Nevada. Too bad you're talking about something completely different than the play being discussed. We WERE discussing Chuck's sitch where the defender touched the ball AFTER the shooter put it in the cylinder. If we discussing the play that you are referencing above, we wouldn't have had to go to the Manual. We coulda just used the one in the rule book that covers it- i.e. casebook play 9.11.

The defender touching the ball AFTER it enters the cone on a dunk attempt is a completely different play.

Apples and oranges iow.

If you say so, but that not what it looks like back on the first page, especially when one pays attention to the words in red above.

CONE?? When did you and MTD,,,uh,,,, never mind. I don't want to know.

JR, Nevada is talking about the same play we all have for 3 pages: defense contacts ball outside and is pushed over the rim...no BI. I don't think anyone ever claimed that the defender could ever make first contact with the ball after it enters the cylinder.

In fact, you were talking specifically about the exception...which deals with a player making contact outside of the cylinder and continuing contact into the cylinder.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jun 1st, 2005 at 11:54 AM]

Directly from the NCAA rules manual:

Art. 3. A player may have a hand legally in contact with the ball, when this contact continues after the ball enters the cylinder or when, in such action, the player touches the basket.

Doesn't specify offense or defense, as long as the contact begins legally.

And what's the NCAA call if the contact by a defender isn't made on the ball until after the ball had already entered the cylinder?

Apples and oranges.

Goaltending, if the ball is contacted, BI if the ring is contacted.

Actually, BI in both cases.

Goaltending only occurs on a try in downward flight outside the cylinder.

An it's only BI when the ring is contacted if the ball is touching the ring.

Of course...but we're debating oranges and banannas.

Aw geeze, I'm in the wrong thread. Shoulda been in the underwater-banana-eating one. :)

Thanks, Cam, I stand corrected.