Basket interference v. goal tending

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rwest

Touching the net while the ball is on the rim is BI. We are not required to judge whether it affected the shot. Just touching it is enough.

Which is a pretty bogus rule, IMHO.

Beyond that, I've forgotten the context of my earlier comment.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Which would be a....wait for it.....pass.

Correct. But, oddly, in the case of a throwin pass, it wouldn't have counted if it went in (throwin violation), but would be awarded if the throwin pass was interfered with (BI). A "regular" pass would count if it went in.

[rwest]

We all agree that hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim is a rare occasion. However, what I don't understand is the reluctance to make it part of the BI definition. It is such an easy and logically thing to do. If it is so rare, and it is, players are not going to change the way they play defense. If they hit the backboard while the ball is not on the rim, it's nothing and we won't call it. If it is, on that rare occasion, on the rim when contact occurs it should be penalized just like we penalize contact with the rim or net.

Can anyone argue that hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim should be allowed by the defense? Can you actually say that it is not basket interference? Forget the rarity of the situation. Do you actually believe the defense should be allowed to hit the backboard with the ball on the rim? I'm not asking if it should be included in the rule book. Just should it be allowed? And remember, forget how often this occurs. Look at this in a vacuum. Should this be a legal act?

[Adam]

I'll just add this before leaving it alone. If it's not currently a problem while there's no rule preventing it, why add the rule?

[chartrusepengui]

As I believe the great Walter C. might have stated this situation:

NFHS 2009 -2010. It is what it is and that's the way it shall be.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'll just add this before leaving it alone. If it's not currently a problem while there's no rule preventing it, why add the rule?

It's not adding new rule. It is only expanding the definition of BI. With the expansion we remove a potential defensive advantage that should not be allowed by the rule book.

Team A is down by 2 with 2 seconds on the clock. The ball is on the rim when B1 bangs the board in frustration. The ball falls off the rim. No basket. T up B1. A1 shoots the two free throws but misses the front end. They are down by 1 with .4 seconds left. They inbound the ball but can't get a shot off. Team B wins.

Why allow the defense an advantage in this situation? A simple change to the BI definition (not a new rule as you suggest) would fix this. I could then award 2 points to team A and also penalize with a Technical foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

Can anyone argue that hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim should be allowed by the defense? Can you actually say that it is not basket interference? Forget the rarity of the situation. Do you actually believe the defense should be allowed to hit the backboard with the ball on the rim? I'm not asking if it should be included in the rule book. Just should it be allowed? And remember, forget how often this occurs. Look at this in a vacuum. Should this be a legal act?

I think it would be fine if we outlawed the defense touching the backboard altogether.

How often is the touch REALLY part of "a legitimate block attempt?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think it would be fine if we outlawed the defense touching the backboard altogether.

How often is the touch REALLY part of "a legitimate block attempt?"

In my view, every time I've seen the backboard hit; it's usually an attempt to pin the ball.
Of course, we could just make it more like volleyball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In my view, every time I've seen the backboard hit; it's usually an attempt to pin the ball.
Of course, we could just make it more like volleyball.

In my view, it's usually an attempt to make a spectacle of oneself, right up there with yelling "AAAAAAAAAA!!"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In my view, it's usually attempt to make a spectacle of oneself, right up there with yelling "AAAAAAAAAA!!"

Then call the T. I've not seen it that way, as every time I've seen the backboard slapped it's been in a legitimate block attempt. Harder than necessary? Maybe, but that's not for me to decide.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then call the T. I've not seen it that way, as every time I've seen the backboard slapped it's been in a legitimate block attempt. Harder than necessary? Maybe, but that's not for me to decide.

...when he's losing by two and hitting the backboard caused the ball to fall off the rim and we won't give him BI, which by rule we can't. If this happens in a close ballgame, I can imagine a few coaches in my area that will warrant a T after I explain to him that this by rule is not BI.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

...when he's losing by two and hitting the backboard caused the ball to fall off the rim and we won't give him BI, which by rule we can't. If this happens in a close ballgame, I can imagine a few coaches in my area that will warrant a T after I explain to him that this by rule is not BI.

Give him the T, he gets two free throws with his best available shooter. I can imagine getting myself into even more trouble granting BI here than not. And a decent coach will vent a little about the rule itself (which I'd allow) and let it go in this situation rather than risk the game. If you get a coach, however, who's not so smart, all bets are off and he'll get no sympathy from me as I write my report later.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Give him the T, he gets two free throws with his best available shooter. I can imagine getting myself into even more trouble granting BI here than not. And a decent coach will vent a little about the rule itself (which I'd allow) and let it go in this situation rather than risk the game. If you get a coach, however, who's not so smart, all bets are off and he'll get no sympathy from me as I write my report later.

You will get into more trouble granting the BI, which we can't under the current rules. However, the trouble will come from your assignor. And let me make myself clear. I would NOT count the basket for any reason because I can't under the current rules. I'm arguing for an expansion of the BI definition to allow me to count the basket.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

You will get into more trouble granting the BI, which we can't under the current rules. However, the trouble will come from your assignor. And let me make myself clear. I would NOT count the basket for any reason because I can't under the current rules. I'm arguing for an expansion of the BI definition to allow me to count the basket.

I knew you weren't, and I realized that part of my post wasn't necessary. I will add, however, that I would be just as likely (probably more so) to get in trouble with the opposing coach for granting it as I would this coach for not granting it. Odds are better that they know the rule.

You're also right that you're not arguing for a new rule, just an addition to an existing rule. That said, the committee isn't likely to do this for a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm really pretty ambivalent on this point (adding BI to this T, if the ball is in the cylinder), but I'm against calling it BI on a legitimate block attempt. I'm even more against making it BI when the ball isn't even in the cylinder.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In my view, it's usually attempt to make a spectacle of oneself, right up there with yelling "AAAAAAAAAA!!"

I should add that you've proposed making the backboard even more restricted than the rim.