Basket interference, T or nothing?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Unless you call a techincal for violating 10-3-4 every time a player trying for goal by successfully dunking the ball grasps the rim as a part of the normal dunking motion, causing it to be pulled down between 1 and 4 inches (which, in my experience, happens about 98% of the time on a dunk), I don't advocate calling a technical for violating 10-3-4 when the try by dunking is unsuccessful, as in the OP. And I'm going to go ahead and guess that I'd be laughed out of the gym for calling this in front of my assignors/evaluators - and not in a funny way.

My call: Ball not in the cylinder = no-call.

[blindzebra]

I had a similar play but A1's shot didn't go in, he back-rimmed the dunk, grabbed the rim and looked down, A2 grabbed the rebound and shot and A1 let go of the rim with the ball in the cylinder on A2's put back.

What do you have on that one?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I had a similar play but A1's shot didn't go in, he back-rimmed the dunk, grabbed the rim and looked down, A2 grabbed the rebound and shot and A1 let go of the rim with the ball in the cylinder on A2's put back.

What do you have on that one?

Depends. Did the movable ring get pulled down during this action, and was the ball within the cylinder at that that time?

Edited to include: Please disregard this question - I don't know what I was thinking.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Depends. Did the movable ring get pulled down during this action, and was the ball within the cylinder at that that time?

A1 attempted a dunk, missed, grabbed the rim, rim did what a break-away rim should and came down, A2 grabbed the rebound and shot, ball was in the cylinder when A1 let go of the rim...but the rim being pulled down has nothing to do with the BI call, A1 can be touching the rim, net or ball in this situation and the call is the same.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Unless you call a techincal for violating 10-3-4 every time a player trying for goal by successfully dunking the ball grasps the rim as a part of the normal dunking motion, causing it to be pulled down between 1 and 4 inches (which, in my experience, happens about 98% of the time on a dunk), I don't advocate calling a technical for violating 10-3-4 when the try by dunking is unsuccessful, as in the OP. And I'm going to go ahead and guess that I'd be laughed out of the gym for calling this in front of my assignors/evaluators - and not in a funny way.

My call: Ball not in the cylinder = no-call.

Sigh....

Whatintheheck does a player grasping the rim after dunking the ball have to do with this play? In the play being discussed, the player grabbed the rim during a loose ball! The player lost control of the ball BEFORE dunking it. There was NO dunk!!! What happened with the ball after the player lost control of it is completely irrelevant as long as the player didn't touch the ball while it was in the cylinder, or touch the basket while the ball was on or within the basket. And the player didn't do either of those acts, as was specifically written in the original post.

And if your assignors/evaluators don't agree with my ruling and want to laugh about it, tell them it might be a good idea to borrow a case book from somebody and read case book play 10.3.4SitB(b) before busting out laughing. This case play is almost exactly the same as the original post. In both situations, a player grabbed the ring, but let go of it before the ball was on the ring or in the basket. Therefore, by rules 9-11 & 4-6, there was no BI. Then, specifically ask them to read the sentence in the RULING of the case play cited above that says "A1's grasping is not penalized if it is judged there was a possibility of injury had he/she not grasped the basket." Iow, it is a technical foul if the ring is grasped when there is no chance of injury.

Your call is wrong.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sigh....

Whatintheheck does a player grasping the rim after dunking the ball have to do with this play? In the play being discussed, the player grabbed the rim during a loose ball! The player lost control of the ball BEFORE dunking it. There was NO dunk!!! What happened with the ball after the player lost control of it is completely irrelevant as long as the player didn't touch the ball while it was in the cylinder, or touch the basket while the ball was on or within the basket. And the player didn't do either of those acts, as was specifically written in the original post.

And if your assignors/evaluators don't agree with my ruling and want to laugh about it, tell them it might be a good idea to borrow a case book from somebody and read case book play 10.3.4SitB(b) before busting out laughing. This case play is almost exactly the same as the original post. In both situations, a player grabbed the ring, but let go of it before the ball was on the ring or in the basket. Therefore, by rules 9-11 & 4-6, there was no BI. Then, specifically ask them to read the sentence in the RULING of the case play cited above that says "A1's grasping is not penalized if it is judged there was a possibility of injury had he/she not grasped the basket." Iow, it is a technical foul if the ring is grasped when there is no chance of injury.

Your call is wrong.

10.3.4.b is not describing an attempted dunk, (let alone one that seemingly involves the shooter losing the ball on the downward stuffing motion of an attempted dunk - just outside the ring). The techincal foul being assessed in situations where the player is not "grasping to avoid injury" do not involve a normal dunking motion/situation/follow-through (whereby the ring is usually grasped/pulled down).

The reason I included the analogy of a player dunking the ball and pulling down the ring as a normal part of the dunking motion is because, by going by the last sentence of 10.3.4.b, this would be a techincal foul. I, however, I do not think it applies.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

10.3.4.b is not describing an attempted dunk, (let alone one that seemingly involves the shooter losing the ball on the downward stuffing motion of an attempted dunk - just outside the ring). The techincal foul being assessed in situations where the player is not "grasping to avoid injury" do not involve a normal dunking motion/situation/follow-through (whereby the ring is usually grasped/pulled down).

The reason I included the analogy of a player dunking the ball and pulling down the ring as a normal part of the dunking motion is because, by going by the last sentence of 10.3.4.b, this would be a techincal foul. I, however, I do not think it applies.

Cool....but you're the one that tried to introduce a dunk when there wasn't one involved. Case book play 10.3.4(b) is close to the play described in the original post. That case play does not reference a dunk in any way. The original play did not involve a dunk either. Pulling the ring down during a dunk was never germane or relevant to the proper ruling. Soooo...please justify your "no call" ruling above for a player grasping the ring during a loose ball, if there's no chance of an injury involving the player. I said it was a technical foul and you basically said that your assignors/evaluators would laugh at me if I made that call. Please give me a rules citation that will justify their laughter.

Btw, what's your answers on Blind Zebra's questions?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Cool....but you're the one that tried to introduce a dunk when there wasn't one involved. Case book play 10.3.4(b) is close to the play described in the original post. That case play does not reference a dunk in any way. The original play did not involve a dunk either. Pulling the ring down during a dunk was never germane or relevant to the proper ruling.

Originally Posted by kycat1

A1 on a fast break, goes up for a dunk but loses the ball near the top of his dunking action above the height of the rim but outside the plane of the rim. He brings his hand forward anyway like he was going to dunk the ball and grasps the rim breifly enough to pull it down a few inches.

The OP by kycat1 involves an attempted dunk.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

The OP by kycat1 involves an attempted dunk.

The OP said that dunker LOST control of the ball BEFORE the dunk. There was NEVER a dunk in the original post. There was a loose ball when the player grabbed the ring.

Sooooo....answers now?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The OP said that dunker LOST control of the ball BEFORE the dunk. There was NEVER a dunk in the original post. There was a loose ball when the player grabbed the ring.

Sooooo....answers now?

Same as before.

And incidentally, I said my assignors/evaluators would laugh me out of the gym, not you. I'm sure you'd be able to scare them into nodding in agreement.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The OP said that dunker LOST control of the ball BEFORE the dunk. There was NEVER a dunk in the original post. There was a loose ball when the player grabbed the ring.

Sooooo....answers now?

So, a player going for a layup that has the ball slip off his hand at the last 2nd was never really shooting?

The player was attempting to dunk. At some point in EVERY dunk attempt, the ball comes off the shooter's hand and becomes a loose ball. Most times, it continues down through the net or bounces off the back of the rim. Whether the separation between the hand and the ball occurs as the hand contacts the rim or 0.05 seconds before is not important. It is still a dunk attempt.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The OP said that dunker LOST control of the ball BEFORE the dunk. There was NEVER a dunk in the original post. There was a loose ball when the player grabbed the ring.

Indulge me:
A1 attempts to dunk the ball. While the ball is still in A1's hand, on its downward dunking motion, and still just completely outside the cylinder, B1 cleanly strips the ball from A1. A1's hand that just had the ball outside the cylinder, still moving in a downward, normal-speed dunking motion, contacts and brings down the moveable ring of the basket on the follow-through.

Jurassic's call: Technical foul for violation of 10-3-4 (and not meeting the requirement of the 10-3-4-Exception)???

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

A1 attempted a dunk, missed, grabbed the rim, rim did what a break-away rim should and came down, A2 grabbed the rebound and shot, ball was in the cylinder when A1 let go of the rim...but the rim being pulled down has nothing to do with the BI call, A1 can be touching the rim, net or ball in this situation and the call is the same.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw, what's your answers on Blind Zebra's questions?

Basket interference. Why, do you have a technical foul for grabbing the rim while not attempting to avoid injury?

Edited to include: Again, I don't know what I was thinking - change the red text to "no call."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Basket interference. Why, do you have a technical foul for grabbing the rim while not attempting to avoid injury?

Basket interference? For grabbing the ring while the ball was in the cylinder? Are you serious?

Methinks you need to go over the definition of basket interference. Please read NFHS rule 4-6. It is not, and never has been, basket interference if a player grabs the ring while the ball is in the cylinder.

That's a pretty basic rule not to know.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Basket interference? For grabbing the ring while the ball was in the cylinder? Are you serious?

Methinks you need to go over the definition of basket interference. Please read NFHS rule 4-6. It is not, and never has been, basket interference if a player grabs the ring while the ball is in the cylinder.

That's a pretty basic rule not to know.

I agree. I don't know what I was thinking, as my edits to those posts now say.