Basket interference v. goal tending

[AKOFL]

I see you are after me today. the rules are intended to be a level playing field.correct? How is it you are not allowed to touch the rim or net and cause it to move into the ball alltering the shot but you can do the same thing by just contacting the back board. does that make any sense? I guess it is a advantage for both teams to use.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

I see you are after me today. the rules are intended to be a level playing field.correct? How is it you are not allowed to touch the rim or net and cause it to move into the ball alltering the shot but you can do the same thing by just contacting the back board. does that make any sense? I guess it is a advantage for both teams to use.

Didn't mean to come across as "after" you.

What do you suggest?

1. Treat the backboard like the rim?
2. leave a subjective decision to the official on whether it altered or affected the shot?
3. another option?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Didn't mean to come across as "after" you.

What do you suggest?

1. Treat the backboard like the rim?
2. leave a subjective decision to the official on whether it altered or affected the shot?
3. another option?

No one has suggested making this require any more judgment than what is already needed for the other BI scenarios. The backboard needs to be treated the same as the rim and net. It can have as much an affect as hitting the net. However, I'm not asking that the official judge the affect. Only whether or not the backboard was hit while the ball was on the rim or in the basket. Just like we do today for the rim and net.

[Back In The Saddle]

I don't like it, but I understand what you're suggesting now.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

No one has suggested making this require any more judgment than what is already needed for the other BI scenarios. The backboard needs to be treated the same as the rim and net. It can have as much an affect as hitting the net. However, I'm not asking that the official judge the affect. Only whether or not the backboard was hit while the ball was on the rim or in the basket. Just like we do today for the rim and net.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.