Basket interference v. goal tending

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This wouldn't solve anything, because 99% of these rare plays involve the backboard being slapped before the ball gets into the cylinder.

More to the point, 99% of the time the backboard gets slapped before the ball is on the rim or in the basket, which I think is what rwest is suggesting. If he wants the backboard to be treated like the rim and net, then slapping the backboard while the ball was in the cylinder wouldn't be basket interference, according to how I'm reading rwest's post. I think he means that slapping the backboard while the ball is on the rim or in the basket would be basket interference, and as Snaqwells has already pointed out, not only does the slap usually occur before the ball gets into the cylinder, it almost always occurs before the ball is on the rim or in the basket.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This wouldn't solve anything, because 99% of these rare plays involve the backboard being slapped before the ball gets into the cylinder.

So is a T for slapping the backboard and yet the rule is there. I'm sure they will not change the rule for a few of us, but can you admitt the effect is the same for contacting the basket or net and contacting the backboard which moves the the rim or net. Just seems like the same outcome by different means which are treated different. What a crybaby, I know

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

So is a T for slapping the backboard and yet the rule is there. I'm sure they will not change the rule for a few of us, but can you admitt the effect is the same for contacting the basket or net and contacting the backboard which moves the the rim or net. Just seems like the same outcome by different means which are treated different. What a crybaby, I know

Don't take this personally, I argue with everyone.

I think part of the difference is the logistics of adding this to the rule. The rule is there more for the unsportsmanlike intent than for the result with regard to the shot. It's more like the rule about removing the jerseys.

Another reason for the exclusion is, again, the percentage of slaps that affect the shot is so low.

[AKOFL]

Not taking it personaly. just wondering if you see our point or not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

Not taking it personaly. just wondering if you see our point or not.

I see it, I've been arguing against it.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I see it, I've been arguing against it.

I would expect nothing less.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not sure of this, and I don't have my books from that far back, but when I first started 29 years ago, didn't we have a similar rule. If contact with the backboard caused it to "move" (maybe the word was "vibrate") during a try, then we called a technical foul, even if it was a legitimate attempt at a block? And, again, I'm not sure of this, back then a touch by a defensive player ended the try, so if ball was touched during a block attempt, the try ended, and no matter how much the backboard moved, or vibrated, a technical foul couldn't be called. I can remember coaches questioning a noncall, with me responding, "Coach, the ball was touched." If the defensive player attempted to block a shot, missed the block, and slapped the backboard so hard that it vibrated during the try, then a technical foul was called, but, like today, we couldn't award the basket if the shot missed due to the vibration.

Oh, those were the good old days. Now let me tell you all a story about something called a 28 foot hash mark. Or would you rather hear a science lesson about an anomaly in the space time continuum called a change of status?

BillyMac, sometimes I cannot help but smile when I read your posts.

Two thoughts:

1. Back when you were first starting out, I believe the rules about slapping the backboard and about BI in general were based mostly on the fragility of the peach baskets being used.

2. I had an AAU coach recently question a 5 second call using verbiage clearly indicating his understanding of the rule has not been updated since the days of the 28' mark. While I do remember the existence of the rule, it was from hanging out with my father while he was studying the rules during his officiating career.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

More to the point, 99% of the time the backboard gets slapped before the ball is on the rim or in the basket, which I think is what rwest is suggesting. If he wants the backboard to be treated like the rim and net, then slapping the backboard while the ball was in the cylinder wouldn't be basket interference, according to how I'm reading rwest's post. I think he means that slapping the backboard while the ball is on the rim or in the basket would be basket interference, and as Snaqwells has already pointed out, not only does the slap usually occur before the ball gets into the cylinder, it almost always occurs before the ball is on the rim or in the basket.

Most of the time when the backboard is hit, the ball will not be on the rim or in the basket. 99.99% of the time the hit will have occurred shortly after the release and the ball would more than likely still be on its way up or down but not in contact with the basket. However, it just doesn't make logically sense to allow the backboard to be hit under the same set of circumstances that you won't allow the net or rim. And in those cases where the ball is on the rim and the player does it intentionally, I think we should have both BI and a Technical. If a player hits the backboard and it prevents the ball from going in while it is in contact with the basket how can this not be BI, logically speaking. I know it's not by rule and by rule I won't award the points. But no one can make a logical argument that this is not interfering with a try for goal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

Most of the time when the backboard is hit, the ball will not be on the rim or in the basket. 99.99% of the time the hit will have occurred shortly after the release and the ball would more than likely still be on its way up or down but not in contact with the basket. However, it just doesn't make logically sense to allow the backboard to be hit under the same set of circumstances that you won't allow the net or rim. And in those cases where the ball is on the rim and the player does it intentionally, I think we should have both BI and a Technical. If a player hits the backboard and it prevents the ball from going in while it is in contact with the basket how can this not be BI, logically speaking. I know it's not by rule and by rule I won't award the points. But no one can make a logical argument that this is not interfering with a try for goal.

I have to ask this question, if you're asking that the BI rule be expanded to include the backboard.
How many times have you actually seen a play that you could have called BI under this proposed change? I mean, how many times have you seen a player strike the backboard while the ball is in the cylinder or on the rim?
That's the times you could have called it. Now, further reduce that to the number of times you have seen that play, and it shook the rim enough to cause the ball to not go into the basket? That's the extent of the "need" for this change.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have to ask this question, if you're asking that the BI rule be expanded to include the backboard.
How many times have you actually seen a play that you could have called BI under this proposed change? I mean, how many times have you seen a player strike the backboard while the ball is in the cylinder or on the rim?
That's the times you could have called it. Now, further reduce that to the number of times you have seen that play, and it shook the rim enough to cause the ball to not go into the basket? That's the extent of the "need" for this change.

The rarity of such an event should not preclude a rule to penalize the violation. How many times have you seen a multiple foul called? I've seen it the same number of times a player has hit the backboard with the ball on the rim: 0. How many times have you called a game with a fan shaped backboard? Yet we have special rules for them. It's not a valid argument to say since it doesn't happen that often we shouldn't include it in the rule book. You are making it sound like this is a big deal. It's not. Just add hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim to the BI definition. It requires no additional judgment on the part of the officials.

[Adam]

The multiple foul exists as a protection from a shooter getting clobbered after he's been fouled.
The committee clearly wants to allow a defender the freedom of movement on an attempt to block a shot, and adding this restriction would reduce that freedom of movement with, essentially, zero real benefit.

[Back In The Saddle]

The multiple foul rule may very well exist because it was needed at one point to clean up the game. And it's continued existence prevents a return to jungle law.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The multiple foul rule may very well exist because it was needed at one point to clean up the game. And it's continued existence prevents a return to jungle law.

Probably so. However, the arguments made to preclude this from the rule book don't bear up to scrutiny in my opinion. It's not like I'm asking for another rule. If that were the case then the frequency argument might have some force. I'm asking for an extension to the BI definition. I'm not asking for anything that would require any additional judgment on the part of the official.

The main argument I'm hearing against this is it doesn't happen very often. Neither are gyms with fan shaped backboards, but we have a rule for it. I bet the frequency of hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim is greater than the number of high school gyms with fan shaped backboards.

If a player hits the backboard in disgust while the ball is on the rim, we T up the offender and if the ball falls of the rim we can't award a basket. How does that make any sense?

[Adam]

Actually, I'd like to revise my statement on the multiple foul rule.

I think it's merely in there as a natural result of certain definitions. Since the ball doesn't become dead on a shooting foul until the try ends, there has to be some sort of process in place to legally deal with a situation where a shooter gets fouled more than once.

Even though we will virtually always pick one, there must be a way to deal with the multiple since it is a distinct possibility according to the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

Probably so. However, the arguments made to preclude this from the rule book don't bear up to scrutiny in my opinion. It's not like I'm asking for another rule. If that were the case then the frequency argument might have some force. I'm asking for an extension to the BI definition. I'm not asking for anything that would require any additional judgment on the part of the official.

The main argument I'm hearing against this is it doesn't happen very often. Neither are gyms with fan shaped backboards, but we have a rule for it. I bet the frequency of hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim is greater than the number of high school gyms with fan shaped backboards.

If a player hits the backboard in disgust while the ball is on the rim, we T up the offender and if the ball falls of the rim we can't award a basket. How does that make any sense?

I hate doing this, but allow me to quote myself:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The committee clearly wants to allow a defender the freedom of movement on an attempt to block a shot, and adding this restriction would reduce that freedom of movement with, essentially, zero real benefit.

My point is not that we shouldn't deal with it simply because it hardly ever happens. My point is that the benefits (virtually nil) are not worth the cost of reducing the freedom of movement the rules committee wants to allow on this defensive play.

My secondary point is that the multiple foul is not a good comparison. Apples and PCs.