Basket interference v. goal tending

[Scrapper1]

I've posted this several times now in different threads, so it's all just cut-and-pasted. But if it helps, here it is again:

In order to have GT, there must be a try for goal. For BI, it doesn't matter how the ball gets on the rim or in the cylinder. Could be a pass or a deflection. But for GT, it must be a try.

Goaltending:

1. Must be a try.
2. Must be on the way down.
3. Must be completely outside the cylinder.
4. Must be completely above the rim.
5. Must have a chance to go in.

Basket Interference:

1. Can't touch the ball if it's in the cylinder.
2. Can't touch the basket or ball if it's on or in the basket.
3. Can't touch the ball (even outside the cylinder) after reaching through the basket.
4. If rim is moved, it can't contact the ball before returning to its original position.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

You don't ever see the rim getting hit, but it's still in the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

You don't ever see the rim getting hit, but it's still in the rules.

You've never seen a BI call for hitting the rim?
Okay, that aside. There are a couple of things you never see but are in the rules.
Hitting the ball with a fist, 10 seconds on a free throw, players using tobacco.

Back to the rim. The possibility of actually impacting the shot by hitting the rim is exponentially higher than if the backboard is hit. Common sense tells me that.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You've never seen a BI call for hitting the rim?
Okay, that aside. There are a couple of things you never see but are in the rules.
Hitting the ball with a fist, 10 seconds on a free throw, players using tobacco.

Back to the rim. The possibility of actually impacting the shot by hitting the rim is exponentially higher than if the backboard is hit. Common sense tells me that.

I think you are missing the point, which is, hitting the backboard is just as likely to alther the ball on the rim as hitting the rim, especially with todays storger rims.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

I think you are missing the point, which is, hitting the backboard is just as likely to alther the ball on the rim as hitting the rim, especially with todays storger rims.

I didn't miss this point, it hasn't been made yet. I question how you can say moving the rim is just as easy to do by hitting the backboard as it by actually hitting the rim.