![]() |
Basket interference, T or nothing?
Had this play the other day. Need some advise.:confused:
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. When this happened the ball is slightly behind A1's hand but not in the plane of the rim. Then after A1 lets loose of the rim, the ball catches up to A1 and it goes through the basket. Do you have BI thus no basket (but the ball was never in the plane nor on the rim while A1 was touching the rim), a T (for grasping the rim, so no basket)or nothing and count the goal? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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?;) |
Quote:
Edited to include: Please disregard this question - I don't know what I was thinking. |
Quote:
Whatintheheck does a player grasping the rim after dunking the ball have to do with this play?:confused: In the play being discussed, the player grabbed the rim during a <b>loose ball</b>! The player lost control of the ball <b>BEFORE</b> dunking it. There was <b>NO</b> dunk!!! What happened with the ball <b>after</b> 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 <b>no</b> BI. Then, specifically ask them to read the sentence in the RULING of the case play cited above that says <i>"A1's grasping is not penalized if it is judged there was a possibility of injury had he/she <b>not</b> grasped the basket."</i> Iow, it <b>is</b> a technical foul if the ring is grasped when there is <b>no</b> chance of injury. Your call is wrong. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Btw, what's your answers on Blind Zebra's questions? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sooooo....answers now? |
Quote:
Quote:
Edited to include: Again, I don't know what I was thinking - change the red text to "no call." |
Quote:
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.:D |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01am. |