Basket interference v. goal tending

[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.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

If hitting the rim or net is BI, then hitting the backboard should be also...that's just common sense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

If hitting the rim or net is BI, then hitting the backboard should be also...that's just common sense.

So, which option do you prefer?
1. Add the backboard to the current BI rule.
2. Make hitting the backboard BI anytime a try is in flight.
3. Make it BI if done while the try is in flight and the rim shakes enough to alter the shot.
4. Another one?

I'm not quite ready to bow to your common sense yet.

[Back In The Saddle]

I think we should take the BI rule the other direction and eliminate at least one thing that is currently BI.

Why should a basket be awarded or canceled because a player merely touches the net while the ball is on the ring? BI for grabbing the net and causing the ring to move, I'm on board with that. BI for getting a hand caught in the net and causing the ring to move, I'm good with that too. But merely batting the strings? I don't think so.

I would dare say this part of the rule is so universally disagreed with that it is almost never called. I have never called BI for this. I have never seen any other official call BI for this, at any level.

As I understand it, FIBA gets along quite nicely without a BI rule at all.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Did you get the author's permission?