Basket interference v. goal tending

[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.