Basket Interference???
 

D1 college game...

A1 has the ball beyond the 3 point line on the left wing,throws a lob to A2 who catches and slams it through on the right side of the basket.

The pass actually traveled over the cylinder and when it was caught by A2 an imaginary cylinder extending upward from the basket would have sliced the ball into two pieces,half in,half out.

The basket was counted. The play was then reviewed by the officials to determine whether the basket was a 2 point score or if A2 hadn't touched the ball and the pass had actually traveled through the basket for a 3 point score. The call stood as the video clearly showed a catch and dunk. B coach was furious,claiming the ball was touch in the cylinder.

No question that the lob was a pass and not a FG attempt if this has anything to do with it.

Does basket interference come into play in this at all? What is the rule? Is HS the same?

If the ball was where you said it was, yes, it would be basket interference (same in both college and HS). Since the officials working the game were there, and reviewed the video, and concluded that the ball was NOT where you said it was, I'll go with their judgment.

1) How do <b>you</b> know that?:confused:

2) Obviously not. It wasn't called.

3) No player from either team can touch the ball or any part of the basket when the ball is on or within the basket, or touch the ball while any part of the ball is within the imaginary cylinder above the ring.

4) Yes

Judgment call.

I'll have to agree that when it was reviewed,they took a very quick look and play continued,so it appeared that the call wasn't in question at all. Their angle and my Tivo angle could have been totally different and misleading from my perspective.

Afaik, the officials can't review BI and change a judgment call. They can only review whether it's a 2 or a 3. That's probably why they looked at it.

Thanks. The pass was from the left wing below free throw line extended and was caught by A2 very close to the glass and appeared to travel over the cylinder. I don't think that is in question,but I think the angle that was replayed was misleading on the position of the ball.

And, that's why the review was so short.

In D-I, this is a call where the benefit of the doubt goes to the offense -- the officials are not going to call BI unless it's clear.

Should be the same in high school too. Any doubt, let it go.

If the ball location was the way you described, then it should've been offensive basket interference and the basket should not have counted. However, if the BI wasn't called originally, then the review cannot change that. The review was probably ONLY to determine if the basket was a 2 or a 3. BI is a judgment call and is not reviewable, NCAA 2-5-3b.

For those that are interested, this play occured in the Kentucky @ Tennessee game a couple of days ago.

Yes, it should have been BI. There is absolutely no question about that. The ball was even more in the cylinder than the OP indicated....probably 90% in/10% out. In fact, a substantial part of the ball was even below the plane of the rim. However, they didn't call it at the time.

Since it was thrown from well outside the 3-point line with an overhead two-handed pass, there was no question about where it was thrown from. The only thing they were looking at was to see if it was touched by the teammate at the rim or not. By ruling it a 2, they basically admitted that it was BI (and they missed it since they can't rule BI from the video) since the ball location was not only in the cylinder at that point in time but was even partially within the basket.

The missed the call.

This crew had a rough night of it...missing a few other obvious calls. In addition to this one, they missed a clear backcourt violation (player with a foot mostly in the backcourt received a pass from a frontcourt teammate and stood there for 1-2 seconds), a big travel (player jumped and started dribble while in the air). They didn't change the outcome of the game (Kentucky did that to themselves by leaveing the paint open for several backdoor dunks and allowing several uncontested 3's).

I didn't see it, so I certainly can't comment on whether it was BI or not....but.......

How can they be admitting that it was BI by ruling it a 2? If the player legally touched the ball <b>outside</b> the cylinder, it would be ruled a 2 also.

In any event the monitor cannot be used to pick up a GT/BI.

All they could do was look to see if it's a 2 or 3.

That is by rule.

Has nothing to do with anybody admitting to anything.

By ruling it a two, they're saying the player DID touch the ball....otherwise it was a 3 (the player who threw it was several feet outside the arc). And by ruling it a two, it had to be BI since the ball was undisputably in the cylinder. But since they didn't call that initially, they couldn't call it based on the video.

The player who touched the ball was on the right side of the rim, the ball came from the left and no more than a very small slice of the ball ball passed the right edge of the rim....it pretty much went straight in the basket and would have gone it even if the player hadn't touched the ball. The player was reaching over the rim to tap it in. For it to have not been BI, the player would have only been able to touch the ball at a point more than 1 ball diameter to the right of the rim.