I hope this one runs to 10 pages, and several bags of popcorn!

[rainmaker]

Have we already argued about this? I don't care. I'm bored!!

When the ball goes up through the bottom of the net, it's a violation. But exactly how far up does the ball have to go for it to be called? Does it have to completely go above the ring? or is just part way through the ring enough? Does any of the ball have to go above the ring, or will part way up the net do it?

[deecee]

does it matter if its a basketball or a soccerball?

[Back In The Saddle]

SECTION 4 TRAVEL, KICK, FIST
A player shall not travel with the ball, as in 4-43, intentionally kick it, as in 4-29, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below.

For my money, pass through means entirely through, so it'd have to pop up entirely above the rim.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

When the ball goes up through the bottom of the net, it's a violation.

Naw, that ain't true at all. It's legal for a ball to go up through the bottom of the net as long as the ball doesn't pass completely through the basket while doing so. "Completely" is the key word; the whole ball has to go above the basket ring from below in order to have a violation. Rule 9-4 and case book play 9.4. The "basket" is defined in R1-10-1.

Of course, Nevada is gonna show up sometime and tell us about one certain play that will never occur- in my lifetime anyway---> if a ball gets tangled inside the net and the ball and net somehow then both go above the ring. Nevada will tell you that one isn't a violation according to a strict reading of the rule. Might happen too sometime...in an alternate universe. So.....be nice and humor him.

[Hartsy]

(sarcasm font ON)

I can't think of any advantage gained by this, so I just won't whistle it. I'll just tell the players to be careful not to do it again. Like a lot of us do with the 3 second violation.

If the ball goes up through the ring, completely, then back down through the ring, I guess then I'd need to actually make the call.

(sarcasm font OFF)

I agree with BITS. I figure the rule was to prevent counting a score from someone shooting up through the ring and back through. If the ball doesn't go above the ring, no chance it can be counted as a score, so no violation.

I have seen balls tipped and hit the net or ring, but never through the ring. I treat it just as I do when a pass sails into the backboard, just let it go.

(I couldn't decide which reply I liked better)

[Camron Rust]

I've seen this 2-3 times over the years. Gotta pass all the way through to be a violation. I agree with Hartsy in that it's probably to prevent a score from under the ring.

[zebraman]

Yep, the rule is just there to prevent counting a hoop that went in the basket after it had passed through from below. As long as it doesn't go all the way through, we play on. I've had a few games where it's rattled around, but never one where it went all the way through.

Z

[ranjo]

I was told a story by a D-1 ref who had a player dunk a ball that went thru the basket, hit the player on the head, and bounced back up thru the basket and off the rim. He and both of his partners assumed the player had simply missed the dunk, until 7:00 a.m. the next morning when their supervisor called to ask how in the world could three officials of their caliber miss a basket interference call. It was a close ACC game and the call could have made the difference between a Win or Loss.

As the big guys keep telling us in camps - The tape doesn't lie, you have to beat the tape.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ranjo
I was told a story by a D-1 ref who had a player dunk a ball that went thru the basket, hit the player on the head, and bounced back up thru the basket and off the rim. He and both of his partners assumed the player had simply missed the dunk, until 7:00 a.m. the next morning when their supervisor called to ask how in the world could three officials of their caliber miss a basket interference call. It was a close ACC game and the call could have made the difference between a Win or Loss.

As the big guys keep telling us in camps - The tape doesn't lie, you have to beat the tape.

BI?

How so?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ranjo
I was told a story by a D-1 ref who had a player dunk a ball that went thru the basket, hit the player on the head, and bounced back up thru the basket and off the rim. He and both of his partners assumed the player had simply missed the dunk, until 7:00 a.m. the next morning when their supervisor called to ask how in the world could three officials of their caliber miss a basket interference call. It was a close ACC game and the call could have made the difference between a Win or Loss.

Good story but it's not quite right and the rule interpretation is wrong.

As described, your play is not basket interference under either NCAA or FED rules. If the dunk hadda went completely thru the basket before it hit the player on the head, as you said, the shot would have already been ended... the bucket would count... and the ball would now be dead. BI cannot be committed on a dead ball and the subsequent touching by the dunker after the ball went though the net is ignored.

In the actual play, the ball had not cleared the mesh when it hit the dunker's head. As soon as the ball that was still partially in the net touched the player's head, that should have been basket interference and the BI would cause the ball to be dead immediately. No player can legally touch a ball until it has completely cleared the mesh.

[Stripes33]

Has anyone ever called a violation for striking the ball with a fist. Called it two seasons ago on a player who blatantly punched a ball trying to stop it from going OB on the sideline. Coach thought it was a joke. Showed him the rulebook after the game and he said he had never heard of it in his 20 years of coaching.

[Hartsy]

Originally posted by Stripes33
Showed him the rulebook after the game and he said he had never heard of it in his 20 years of coaching.

Hmmm. Chances are it wasn't the only rule that fit that description.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Stripes33
Has anyone ever called a violation for striking the ball with a fist. Called it two seasons ago on a player who blatantly punched a ball trying to stop it from going OB on the sideline. Coach thought it was a joke. Showed him the rulebook after the game and he said he had never heard of it in his 20 years of coaching.

I've seen it once, at a aau game.

I didn't realize I saw a violation until the play was done, other team got the ball anyway so no biggie.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I've seen it once, at a aau game.

I didn't realize I saw a violation until the play was done, other team got the ball anyway so no biggie.

Well.....slow day,Slappy....let me run this by y'alls...

A player is out-of-bounds for throw-in after a made basket....he then fists or kicks the ball in-bounds to a teammate....violation? Ignore? Smack him upside the head?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 9th, 2005 at 04:27 PM]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Of course, Nevada is gonna show up sometime and tell us about one certain play that will never occur- in my lifetime anyway---> if a ball gets tangled inside the net and the ball and net somehow then both go above the ring. Nevada will tell you that one isn't a violation according to a strict reading of the rule. Might happen too sometime...in an alternate universe. So.....be nice and humor him.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

A player is out-of-bounds for throw-in after a made basket....he then fists or kicks the ball in-bounds to a teammate....violation? Ignore? Smack him upside the head?