Missed Dunk -> Basket Interference?
 

Under NFHS Rules

This issue came up in one of the games I was refereeing and I was unsure what to do. Player A1 is driving to the basket and goes up for a dunk. He hits the ball off of the rim and it shoots about 10 feet or so up into the air. To prevent injury to himself and player B2 who is now reasonably close to the basket, he hangs on the rim for a second or so. He releases the rim and, on its return to its original position, it contacts the ball, which then proceeds through the basket.

I ruled that it was offensive basket interference, under NFHS 4-6-4, which says that basket interference occurs when a player "pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position"

However, I just checked, and under the exception to 4-6-2, it says that "Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference". The definition of a dunk in 4-16 is ambiguous with respect to this situation. Is the deflection of the ball into the air off of the rim considered part of the dunk, or not?

I know that with a normal try, the try doesn't end until it is successful, clearly unsuccessful, the ball touches the floor, or the ball becomes dead (NFHS 4-41-4) but does the same apply to a dunk?

The "dunking is not BI" phrase is meant to allow the ball to be carried into the cylinder. Once the ball is released, accidentally or otherwise, all the provisions apply.

Your play was BI

I believe you are correct in your call. BI per your first definition.

The exception in 4-6-2 is regarding continuous contact with the ball. Per your OP, the ball hits the rim and goes into the air. There is no continous motion thru the basket as defined in the dunk or exception.

Another question: A1 player has a lay-up as the ball goes though the rim and is in the net A2 hits the net. Do I have anything?

Good question. I know the rule 4-6-1 includes touching the net, but I believe that to mean the player intentionally attempting to affect the shot. If I deem the contact with the net incidental as the player was jumping in case the ball rebounds off the rim, I go "no call". If the player is grabbing the net or otherwise that appears intentional, then BI.

What say ye others??

I say ye need to read rule 4-6.

There's no mention of "intentional" or "incidental" in the description and neither are <b>ever</b> a criteria of BI. You penalize the act, not whether there was intent or not. You're calling it wrong.

Going strictly by the rule, that is BI.

Handle with care though.

aaahhh I knew you would come thru JR. And that is the answer I expected. I agree, this is what the rule states, no arguement. As I am learning the rules I also refer back to page 10, prior to Rule 1, where it talks about knowing the intent and purpose of the rules so that it may be intelligently applied to each play situation. That said, I believe this to be a play that you have to judge and as you state in your subsequent post.... handle with care. I would hope the intent and purpose of this rule is not to penalize the offense by removing a certain basket due to inadvertant contact with the net by a teammate.

If you expected that answer, why did you post incorrect criteria in the first place then?:confused:

Again, you penalize the <b>act</b>. Whether a player actually intended to commit that act or not is completely irrelevant as to whether you should call BI. There might be some judgment involved as to whether the <b>act</b> that was committed warrants a call or not. You can have inadvertent contact that should be called BI because it actually affected whether a ball went in or not. That <b>is</b> the purpose and intent of the rule imo. You also might have contact that looks deliberate, but it also might have absolutely no effect on the play, so you ignore it. That also is the purpose and intent of the rule imo.

I posted the Rule and followed with comment as to why I have not called it. I hoped it would bring discussion as you have done.

I appreciate your lengthy explanation above. I believe you to be one of the foremost authorities on this site regarding rules, but I seldom see posts as to what the "intent" of the rule is believed to be. That is one of the best explanations I have seen.

That's because different officials may, and do, read different intents into a rule. Case in point- the long thread titled "Advantage/Disadvantage".

Iow, my vision of what is the "purpose and intent" of a rule might be diametrically opposite of what someone else feels is the "purpose and intent" of the same rule. And who gets to says who's right?

Imo, the "purpose and intent" of a rule should come from a local rules interpreter, so that all officials in an area could make their calls as evenly and uniformly as possible.

Of course, I believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny too.:)