Basket interference v. goal tending

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

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.

That's interesting. Almost all player contact with the backboard I have ever noticed has been from the front, more or less directly into the backboard. And, not surprisingly, that is the one direction in which most backboards are most strongly braced to prevent movement.

Reaching way back to my HS physics class (and the more scientifically inclined will correct me if I'm wrong here), I recall there are some other complicating issues involved too. There's the matter of the mass of the backboard, especially a glass backboard. That much matter is going to strongly resist any impetus applied to it. A material suitably stiff to make a good backboard will lack the elasticity required to be a good carrier of transverse wave energy. A backboard's size relative to the size of the rim mount site means that any wave that is set up will dissipate somewhat before reaching the rim mount site. (Iirc, wave energy dissipates at a rate equal to the square of the distance from the center of the wave) Padding along the edge of the backboard will have a dampening effect on wave energy that might otherwise be reflected from the edge of the backboard material back into the backboard. Need I point out that the most padded surface of all is the bottom, just below the rim? For a glass backboard in particular, I would expect the manufacturer to place a buffer material between the rim and the glass, and probably line the holes between the shafts of the bolts and the glass. This material would exist to resist energy applied to the rim being transferred to the glass. Otherwise you risk cracking the glass every time a ball hits the rim. That energy transfer resistance would likely operate in both directions. On glass backboards the rim must also be attached to the backboard frame so that it cannot come crashing down if the glass breaks. Wave energy transferred via this additional attachment point is almost certain to be out of phase to some degree with waves transferred from the glass itself, further reducing the total wave energy transferred to the ring.

There are obviously a lot of variables based on how a backboard is constructed and braced and how the rim is attached. And I am not saying that it's impossible to shake the rim by hitting the backboard, obviously it is possible. But the physics involved means a player must apply a significantly greater force to the backboard to achieve the same movement caused by simply hitting the rim.

Are you certain you want to treat touching the backboard the same as touching the rim?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

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.

Oh, and as long as we're going to change the BI rule, let's remove the restriction against touching the net so long as the touching does not move the rim.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

That's interesting. Almost all player contact with the backboard I have ever noticed has been from the front, more or less directly into the backboard. And, not surprisingly, that is the one direction in which most backboards are most strongly braced to prevent movement.

Reaching way back to my HS physics class (and the more scientifically inclined will correct me if I'm wrong here), I recall there are some other complicating issues involved too. There's the matter of the mass of the backboard, especially a glass backboard. That much matter is going to strongly resist any impetus applied to it. A material suitably stiff to make a good backboard will lack the elasticity required to be a good carrier of transverse wave energy. A backboard's size relative to the size of the rim mount site means that any wave that is set up will dissipate somewhat before reaching the rim mount site. (Iirc, wave energy dissipates at a rate equal to the square of the distance from the center of the wave) Padding along the edge of the backboard will have a dampening effect on wave energy that might otherwise be reflected from the edge of the backboard material back into the backboard. Need I point out that the most padded surface of all is the bottom, just below the rim? For a glass backboard in particular, I would expect the manufacturer to place a buffer material between the rim and the glass, and probably line the holes between the shafts of the bolts and the glass. This material would exist to resist energy applied to the rim being transferred to the glass. Otherwise you risk cracking the glass every time a ball hits the rim. That energy transfer resistance would likely operate in both directions. On glass backboards the rim must also be attached to the backboard frame so that it cannot come crashing down if the glass breaks. Wave energy transferred via this additional attachment point is almost certain to be out of phase to some degree with waves transferred from the glass itself, further reducing the total wave energy transferred to the ring.

There are obviously a lot of variables based on how a backboard is constructed and braced and how the rim is attached. And I am not saying that it's impossible to shake the rim by hitting the backboard, obviously it is possible. But the physics involved means a player must apply a significantly greater force to the backboard to achieve the same movement caused by simply hitting the rim.

Are you certain you want to treat touching the backboard the same as touching the rim?

That ought to send him into a spin for a while...
Which way did he go? Which way did he go?

Seriously...my thoughts exactly....well, not exactly but close enough.

[Back In The Saddle]

I'm afraid he might have left to Google impetus and transverse wave and succumbed to Search Overload.

[BillyMac]

Let's just go back to the 1891-92 NFHS (Naismith Federation of High Schools) rules:

Rule 8. A goal shall be made when the ball is thrown or batted from the grounds into the basket and stays there, providing those defending the goal do not touch or disturb the goal. If the ball rests on the edges, and the opponent moves the basket, it shall count as a goal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

For BI, it doesn't matter how the ball gets on the rim or in the cylinder. Could be a pass or a deflection.

Or a throwin.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Did you get the author's permission?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

I not arguing about "breaking" the rim.

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

But you can't ignore the possibility, which is one reason it's easier to move the rim by actually hitting the rim.

While "any movement" would move the rim, it takes significant movement to affect the shot.

The problem as I've seen it presented is the backboard getting hit so hard it shakes the rim. That takes a hell of a hit, IMO. This virtually always happens before the ball is in the cylinder, so unless the backboard is going to be off limits during any try no matter where the ball is, the proposals offered will do nothing to solve the alleged problem that actually exists.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Or a throwin.

Which would be a....wait for it.....pass.

[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.