Rule 5 Section 1 Art. 1- A goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from above and REMAINS IN or passes through.

I consider the net part of the goal and so if a player dunks the ball and it hits him in the head without clearing the net and go back up through the goal I would consider that as NOT remaining in the goal and just let play continue.

That's correct. The net is part of the basket.

But, is the timing such that the ball must be determined to remain in or pass through before the buzzer in order to count? OR, must it merely enter before the buzzer and then remain in or pass through? That's the question in this thread.

I consider the net part of the goal and so if a player dunks the ball and <font color = red>it hits him in the head without clearing the net</font> and go back up through the goal I would consider that as NOT remaining in the goal and <font color = red>just let play continue</font>. [/B][/QUOTE]I would consider reading and learning the definition of basket interference instead if I were you. Rule 4-6-1 to be exact. If you do that, then you just might be able to make the <b>correct</b> call if you ever encounter the play that you described above. If a player dunks the ball andit hits him in the head without clearing the net, that player just committed basket interference(even in the .....wait for it....SEC. :) It doesn't matter where the ball goes after it hit the dunker in the head; the ball is immediately dead because of the offensive BI. Play does not continue.

You're right. Sorry.

Geeze, no need to be sorry. We all get one one wrong every now and then.

On that Rip Hamilton play, didn't they stop play on that one too because of the offensive BI? I thought it was the same call under NBA rules, but.... I really don't know the NBA rules worth a damn.

Yes they did stop play. I just mispoke when I said let play continue. I guess I should say i mistyped

Again, there are two possibilities by rule: passing through or remaining in. Neither occured in the situation you mentioned where if it strikes a player's head and comes back out. In NF a ball that goes in the basket and comes back out is not a goal. However, since the basket will count if the ball remains in, then I will count the goal as soon as the ball enters and will not wait until after it completely passes through (so long as it does not come back out.)

[Mind you I do not think I can really distinguish between a ball in the basket and having passed through anyway!]

Again, there are two possibilities by rule: passing through or remaining in. Neither occured in the situation you mentioned where if it strikes a player's head and comes back out. In NF a ball that goes in the basket and comes back out is not a goal. However, since the basket will count if the ball remains in, then I will count the goal as soon as the ball enters and will not wait until after it completely passes through (so long as it does not come back out.)

[Mind you I do not think I can really distinguish between a ball in the basket and having passed through anyway!]
[/B][/QUOTE]Are you saying that you <b>wouldn't</b> call BI in the sitch where the ball struck a dunker's head while the ball was still within the net and the ball then came back out? :confused:

Are you saying that you <b>wouldn't</b> call BI in the sitch where the ball struck a dunker's head while the ball was still within the net and the ball then came back out? :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

No I said I would not count the basket because the ball did not pass through or stay in. Whether this is BI or not is another topic. (There is an exception to BI that dunking or stuffing does not qualify as BI. It is debateable whether hitting your own head would qualify for the exception or not. However, I do not think we should get off topic.)

How is it debatable? It's BI to touch the ball while it's in or on the basket. The exception applies to the hand that carries the ball into the basket. The exception does not apply to the player's head.

Rip Hamilton's play was BI in the NBA, and would also be BI in NCAA/FED.

True the exception rule is written using the word "hand". However, if taken literally, it would mean that a player who wraps the ball in their arm while dunking would be guilty of BI since the arm is not the hand.

The philosophy of the exception comes at the end with the words "Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference." Since these words are in there, it is clear that the intention of the exception should perhaps go beyond contact with the hand.

This means IMO that the exception does not cover interesting situations like the one of the head and so it would be an interesting debate to discuss the intention of the exception versus what happened.

One could argue that any contact with the body that is part of the dunk is allowable including hitting your own head.

One could also argue that the head was contacted after the ball entered and the basket and so it should be treated differently than contact before.

Of course if you respond to this with further arguments about it being BI then you will have to admit that it is debateable since you will be in fact debating it.

I told you it wasn't debatable. :shrug: