Championship of the Team Camp that I went to this weekend. I had just worked the semi-finals of the Varsity Division, and was watching the JV final. Team A up by 1, 0:15 left, Team B has the ball. B1 drives the right side and puts up a layup with 0:04 left and misses. B2 gets the backside rebound and gets a tip off right before the buzzer. The ball hits high off the backboard, then the front of the rim and bounces straight up about 4-5 inches. As the attempt is being made, defender A1 has jumped from about midway in the lane towards the basket. Realizing that it's too late to block the shot, A1 grabs and bottom of the net and pulls down on it, causing the entire basket to come down and spring back up (Important Note: Not the rim, but the entire basket mechanism. This was one of those portable college type baskets where the entire hoop can sort of "sink" on a hard dunk...this is exactly what happened here). As the basket springs back up, the front of the rim makes contact with the ball on the way down, causing it to not go in the hoop. C comes in w/ BI, and Team B wins by 1.

After the play was over, the clinicians who were watching the game discussed the sitch for a while. Now, taking what the rule book actually says about BI, I can see where someone might have a problem with this call. Recall that section (a) states that the ball must be on the rim when contact is made with either the rim, net, etc. and that section (d) states that if the movable ring is brought down and springs back up, then BI is the call.

In this sitch, the ball was not on the rim when contact with the net occurred and the rim itself did not bend, only the basket as a whole. That being said, the action did not allow the ball an opportunity to go in the hoop. Does anyone NOT have BI here?

[Edited by tmp44 on Jun 27th, 2005 at 08:33 AM]

I don't see why they would question the play. It's BI. Article 4 is exactly what occurred. "Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position." Article 4 doesn't say that the ball has to be touched or on the rim, only that the rim touches the ball before returning to it's proper position. This was a rule change from 2 years ago.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jun 27th, 2005 at 09:38 AM]

BI, pretty obvious to me. If you're worried about the fact that whole "basket mechanism" moved, then it seems to me that the rim moved too. Therefore, the ring must've been movable, so it still fits the definition of BI.

Anybody splitting that hair isn't using a lot of common sense, IMHO.

The ring didn't bend, but it did move. The rules don't say that the rim must bend, do they? It says, "Pulls down a movable ring..." Why would that not include moving "the whole basket"?

I agree with the abovees, easy BI in my mind.

Just to take this further...

I agree that it was BI and the clinicians eventually decided that BI was in fact the correct call. The only aspect the one clinician was worried about is that the "pulling down of a movable ring" meant that the rim had to

1) be a "breakaway rim" that can actually bend down and therefore,

2) since the rim itself remained, for lack of better word, "flat," the last section would not apply.

How could the rim be both pulled down, and also "flat"? I don't get the picture you're painting here. Do you mean flat as in horizontal, or flat as in planar?

Juulie, it was probably one of those portable basketball stanchions. So the whole stanchion moved. The rim, backboard and support were all pulled slightly forward when the kid pulled the net. Then, when the counter-weight took over, it all moved back to upright.

Okay, thanks. That thought never entered my head.

Chuck,

That's exactly what happened...it was just hard to explain. Thanks! (sorry Juulie)

What's a "stanchion"? :D

I'm also not sure why the clinician would fuss over the details of rim, etc. - is it not just flat-out illegal to grab the "goal" (which includes rim, mesh and the flange) while the ball is in the cylinder? :confused:

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting something...

Assuming you're serious (not sure what you meant by the smiley)...the post system that is anchored in the floor as opposed to the wall or ceiling.

No, it's not illegal to grab the goal while the ball is in the cylinder. It's illegal to touch the ball while the ball is in the cylinder (or to pull the goal down such that it subsequently touches the ball before the goal returns to the normal position).

It's illegal to touch the goal when the ball is in the goal or touching the goal.

The cylinder is the space above the goal but not the goal itself.

Ugh...yes...my bad. I think my mind went temporarily went south on that one. Thanks for the correction.



I hope you're not suggesting that I'm some kind of dope for not knowing what "Stanchion" is. Webster defines it as "upright bar, post, or support". Which leads me to ask, why not just use one of those words?

Probably because support could mean anything, even though that's what a stanchion is. But a support could also be the pipes that hold a goal from above or from the wall. A stanchion best describes it.

Here endeth the English lesson. :)

According to my British friend, we speak American and Canuck speaks Canadian, so the English lessons are certainly necessary. :)

Given the rest of tmp44's description, we already know it's a portable basket support :D so IMO you don't really need the $10 word when the $1 word will do.

It was :cool: to learn what stanchion means.

But I'm willing to bet a week's worth of game fees that if you approached 50 people, less than five would know what it means.

Another good question might be why nobody has a "T" on A1 for grabbing the basket - under FED rule 10-3-4.

No, it's not illegal to grab the goal while the ball is in the cylinder.

[/B][/QUOTE]Even when the grabbing is <b>not</b> done to prevent an injury? :confused:

An interesting point JR--one that in fact had never occurred to me. My question is does 10-3-4 cover grasping and pulling on the net or just the rim? I know I've only seen it called (as I'm sure is the case with almost all of us) when A1 dunks and pulls down on the rim in a showboating type manner.

That being said, the T would not have been enforced in this sitch because it would have had no bearing on the end of the game (recall that the BI was at the buzzer and gave Team B a 1 point victory). But let me take this one step further--let's say the BI occurs to TIE the game--could one foreseeably call the BI and the T? I ask that for 2 reasons.

1) I wouldn't have the cojones to make that call--let the kids decide it in OT; but more importantly

2) Is this possible? I ask that for this reason. Say A1 goes for a layup, B1 slaps the backboard, wiping out the shot and getting a T assessed. Would the same scenerio happen here? Wipe out the shot and assess the T instead? I tend to think not, but this may create a nice little discussion.....

(1)My question is does 10-3-4 cover grasping and pulling on the net or just the rim? I know I've only seen it called (as I'm sure is the case with almost all of us) when A1 dunks and pulls down on the rim in a showboating type manner.

(2) But let me take this one step further--let's say the BI occurs to TIE the game--could one foreseeably call the BI and the T?
(3) Say A1 goes for a layup, B1 slaps the backboard, wiping out the shot and getting a T assessed. Would the same scenerio happen here? Wipe out the shot and assess the T instead?
[/B][/QUOTE]Rule 10-3-4 sez it's a T to grasp the <b>basket</b>. The net and the rim are both part of the basket, as per FED rule 1-10-1. Grabbing either without doing so to prevent an injury is a T.

(2) Yes, you can call both BI and a T on the same play.See the language in case book play 9.11.4.

(3) Whoa. You got this one completely wrong from the git-go. Slapping the backboard <b>NEVER</b> wipes out a shot. <b.NEVER!!!</b> And it's not a T to slap the backboard if you rule that the player did so while legitimately attempting to block a shot.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 28th, 2005 at 08:45 AM]

JR...Bad description...meant this in the "hit the backboard causing the backboard to shake" resulting in a T sense. My bad. That being said, and correct me if I'm wrong and if so I stand corrected, but I thought I have read on here multiple times that if this T is called, the one for causing the basket to shake, that the shot is wiped out and the Technicals are shot instead? Am I wrong here? If so, where the he!! my brain today?

1) Yes, you're wrong. You get the T, and the shot is good or not based on its own merit.

2) You're brain is apparently stuck up your stanchion. ;)

3) While not quite the sample size that someome (cancuckref?) requested, I just asked 10 people -- all knew what a stanchion was.

Thanks, Bob. Who knows where I got that info...probably from someone who doesn't know what a stanchion is :o .

Eh, I'm guessing none of those 10 were Canadian, ya hoser.

As Bob said, your head is up your stanchion.

Why do I get the feeling that we might just be seeing a <b>whole</b> lot of usage of that phrase here in the future? :D

It is not a T to cause the backboard to shake if it was during a legitimate attempt at blocking a shot. Shots are NEVER wiped out in these situations unless BI or goaltending is involved. There's a good explanation for you to read in case book play 10.3.5.

<u>Casebook Play 10.3.5</u>
A1 tries for goal and (a)B1 jumps and attempts to block the shot but instead slaps or strikes the backboard and the ball goes into the basket or (b)B1 vibrates the ring as a result of <b>pulling on the net</b> and the ball does not enter the basket.
<b>RULING:</b> In (a) legal and the basket counts and (b) a technical foul is charged to B1 and there is no basket.
<b>COMMENT:</b> The purpose of the rule is to penalize intentional contact with the backboard while a shot or try is involved or placing a hand on the backboard to gain an advantage.A player who strikes either backboard so forcefully it cannot be ignored because it is attempt to draw attention to the player, or as means of venting frustration may be assessed a technical foul pursuant to rule 10-3-7.

Thanks for bringing that up - I tried to post it yesterday but my internet connection went out. Uh, yeah . . . that's it. :p

By my reading of the 'moving basket ring' BI rule, the basket moved - whether there's a spring or not, it's not stated.

Also, if your assignor doesn't want you to call BI, call the T.

Call the technical - otherwise you ARE deciding the game by intentionally ignoring a rule.

YOU already knew it was a portable basket support. I spaced that part out.

Chuck was helping ME when he used the word "stanchion". I had spaced that part, but he was politely helping me remember it by using slightly different words.

It would depend on which 50 people you approached, wouldn't it?

Even when the grabbing is <b>not</b> done to prevent an injury? :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

Speaking in the context of basket interference only.

Speaking in the context of basket interference only. [/B][/QUOTE]

Huh :confused: ??

Huh :confused: ?? [/B][/QUOTE]

The conversation was about BI. Canuk said: "is it not just flat-out illegal to grab the "goal" (which includes rim, mesh and the flange) while the ball is in the cylinder?"

I was directly responding to the question of BI. The answer is not. It's not flat out illegal to grab the goal.

A T is a seperate issue and has no dependancy on the location of the ball and is not an automatic call simply based on grabbing the rim.

So........how long have you been working for Acme Sports Equipment? :D

Correct....again, my bad....I'm also curious about whether the T could/should have been called instead on this play.

As i read the play, both the BI and the T should have been called.

The conversation was about BI. Canuk said: "is it not just flat-out illegal to grab the "goal" (which includes rim, mesh and the flange) while the ball is in the cylinder?"

I was directly responding to the question of BI. The answer is not. It's not flat out illegal to grab the goal.

A T is a seperate issue and has no dependancy on the location of the ball and is not an automatic call simply based on grabbing the rim. [/B][/QUOTE]

Camron -- The original answer that you gave to the question was that "it's not illegal to grab the goal while the ball is in the cylinder." This is simply not true. To make the statement true, you should have said either, "It's not BI to grab the goal while the ball is in the cylinder" or "It's always illegal to grab the goal regardless of where the ball is." To say it's not illegal to grab the goal while the ball is in the cylinder is misleading.

Camron -- The original answer that you gave to the question was that "it's not illegal to grab the goal while the ball is in the cylinder." This is simply not true. To make the statement true, you should have said either, "It's not BI to grab the goal while the ball is in the cylinder" or "It's always illegal to grab the goal regardless of where the ball is." To say it's not illegal to grab the goal while the ball is in the cylinder is misleading. [/B][/QUOTE]

You are correct...but you should also, by the same argument, not say "It's always illegal to grab the goal regardless of where the ball is." It IS sometimes legal to grab the goal for safety (it may be BI in some cases).

Given that the context was clearly a discussion of BI, the statement is valid...in context. Out of context, it is incorrect.

Bob,

Recall that the BI won the game for Team B, and the T would have been inconsequential. Common sense tells me to call the BI and get the he!! off the floor as soon as you can, since you're probably going to have one pissed off coach coming at ya. In theory, the T could be called, but would they be shot? I tend to think not since the FTs would have no bearing on the end of the game. IMO, if the FTs aren't going to be shot, why go through the trouble of calling the T? BI wins the game, game over. Get in, Get out, Get done.

Around here, a stanchion is what is in the cow barn holding each animal in its own stall.

Except that you penalize infractions in the order in which they occur. . .

Chuck, are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting?

Team A down 1 point, B1 grasps the rim, causing it to shake, and causing BI . . .

Any team A player shoots FT's.
If neither is good, award 2 points for BI - team A wins by 1.
If one shot is good, award 2 points for BI - team A wins by 2.
If both shots are good, then what do you do? I would assume, by your read, you award 2 points for the BI - team A wins by 3.

I have to disagree with this for two reasons. First of all, 8-7 states that the penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which the fouls occurred.

More importantly, 5-6-3 (Exception) states that free throws at the end of a game are not attempted unless they would affect the outcome. The BI automatically puts team A up by 1, so the free throws can have no effect on the game.

Nope. :) Just stirring the pot so that someone will point out that:

Thanks for not making me look up the citation. ;)

You no-good, sneaky, rotten squirrel! :p