Basket interference v. goal tending

[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.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Why is it a violation to hit the rim or net while the ball is on the rim?

Supposedly, because it may alter the ball while on the rim (though I have no idea how hitting the net could alter the ball, but tha's another discussion).

If that is the case, then hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim is more likely to, or at least as likely to, alter the ball as hitting the rim or net, so why is the backboard not included in the rule?

Common sense to me, and at least to rwest.

[Adam]

I've offered my theory on why. I've also yet to see a player actually hit the backboard while the ball is in the cylinder; nor have I heard or read anyone who has seen it. Everytime I've seen this slap, it happened as the ball was on the way. So adding the backboard to the current BI rule would do nothing.

[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.