Basket interference v. goal tending

[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.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Because when you move the backboard you move the rim.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

Because when you move the backboard you move the rim.

And moving the backboard is just as easy as moving the rim, which comes with a hinge? I don't buy it, sorry.

I see rims move often. I haven't seen a backboard move significantly, at all, ever.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And moving the backboard is just as easy as moving the rim, which comes with a hinge? I don't buy it, sorry.

I see rims move often. I haven't seen a backboard move significantly, at all, ever.

I not arguing about "breaking" the rim.

The backboard doesn't have to move "significantly", just any movement will move the rim.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

Because when you move the backboard you move the rim.

So actually moving the backboard would be required to call this BI? Because just touching the backboard isn't going to affect the shot any more than just touching the net will.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So actually moving the backboard would be required to call this BI? Because just touching the backboard isn't going to affect the shot any more than just touching the net will.

No.

I'll go back to the original, SIMPLE point - if the rim and net are included in the BI rule, the backboard should be included also. Touching the backboard is more likely to alter the ball than touching the net.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So actually moving the backboard would be required to call this BI? Because just touching the backboard isn't going to affect the shot any more than just touching the net will.

Touching the net while the ball is on the rim is BI. We are not required to judge whether it affected the shot. Just touching it is enough.