Basket interference v. goal tending

[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?

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

But you are asking to take an action that is currently legal and make it illegal. What form it might take in the rules book is only part of the story. The rest of the world would perceive it to be a new rule: "New rule this year guys, you cannot touch the backboard when blocking a shot, or it could be called goal tending." It would have some impact on nearly all shot blocking around the basket.

Originally Posted by rwest

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?

Since the mere fact that a slap on the backboard caused a ball to fall off the rim isn't a violation, a T for unsporting conduct, without awarding points, is consistent.

I just don't see the committee making what would be widely perceived as a rule change simply because occasionally somebody loses a basket over this. Perhaps if it became an issue in a high profile game somewhere you might get some interest. Other than that, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[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.

[Adam]

My original assertion was incomplete, with regard to the rarity of the event negating any perceived need for a rule change. First of all, I would argue that your multiple foul comparison doesn't address the frequency argument, because it's not in the book to prohibit a rare event. It's in the book to fill a logical hole in the rules; otherwise the penalty for two defenders fouling the same shooter would be four free throws.

As for the fan-shaped backboard, this is a relic rule that addresses an eqipment difference that would otherwise create a similar hole in the rules with regard to OOB violations.

This leads to my next point:

Second, I haven't said we shouldn't have a rule due to a low frequency. (A better example of this would be the 10 second rule for free throws.) I will say that the cure for a low frequency event should come with little to no adverse side-effects. The adverse side effect here would be a limitation (even if rare) of the freedom of movement for a defender attempting to block a shot near the rim. The effect on players having to adjust will be much larger than the perceived benefits of solving a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

As for the 10 second rule, the comparison falls apart due to two reasons. There are zero adverse affects from the rule, and it is a problem that would likely manifest itself if the rule were removed. Enterprising coaches would start using free throws as timeouts, instructing their shooters to take their time.

As for the intent of the rules committee, I'll admit to deducing that intent from the very clear wording in the TF rule, stating that if it's a legitimate block attempt it's legal. I'm assuming they have a reason, and that's the simplest one I can think of.

I will add that I wouldn't be against an alteration to the TF rule on this, allowing for the awarding of points if, in the judgment of the official, the rim rattling resulting from the unsportsmanlike smack on the backboard prevents the ball from entering the basket. While I think the TF is enough, I wouldn't have a problem with adding the points.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I will add that I wouldn't be against an alteration to the TF rule on this, allowing for the awarding of points if, in the judgment of the official, the rim rattling resulting from the unsportsmanlike smack on the backboard prevents the ball from entering the basket. While I think the TF is enough, I wouldn't have a problem with adding the points.

But what if a team member from the bench ran out onto the floor, attempted to block a layup, and hit the backboard causing the ball to fall off the rim? Shouldn't we be able to award the two points, plus pile on a load of direct and indirect T's?

[Adam]

No, I'm going to give him credit for knowing enough to hit the backboard and not the rim; then I'm going to pile on with a bunch of Ts.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Did you get the author's permission?