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.

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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



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.

My multiple foul comparison was used to refute your original assertion that we shouldn't have a rule simply because its frequency of occurrence is low. So, it was on point. As was the fan shaped backboard rule, which you have yet to address.

So lets move on to your next argument that the committee doesn't want to restrict freedom of movement. Is this an assertion based on your interpretation or have you seen this in writing? I'm not accusing you of anything, just wanted to know where this is coming from.

Regardless of its source, let's look at this argument. What you are saying is that the committee is allowing the defense to interfere with the offenses chance to score when attempting to block a shot by hitting the backboard but a similar attempt that might hit the rim or net is penalized. Also, if it is rare (as you suggest and I agree) that the ball will be on the rim, then the defender shouldn't be worried about hitting the backboard when attempting to block the shot. Since this scenario is rare, there is no restriction (or virtually none) on the defenders movement. If on the rare occasion that it is on the rim, this should be considered BI.

Bottom line: You can't argue that there is restriction of movement if this scenario is rare.

We are also just looking at the attempt to block a shot. Another scenario is hitting the backboard in frustration. If this should occur while the ball is on the rim, by rule we don't have BI. Logically we do, but not by rule. We just have a technical foul. I don't believe this is enough of a penalty. The basket should count.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Did you get the author's permission?