|
Basket interference v. goal tending
Let me see if I have this straight: Basket interference is at the basket and may or may not involve touching the ball. Goal tending is not necessarily at the basket and only involves touching the ball.
Basket interference can be by offense or defense. goal tending is defense only. Or can someone else put it better? Rita |
Quote:
GT is never at the basket (it is always when the ball is entirely outside the cylinder). Otherwise, it is BI. GT can be by either...it it not limited to the defense but it would be very rare to see it by the offense (I've never seen it). |
Who You Gonna Call ??? Mythbusters ...
A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. These are examples of basket interference. It is legal to touch the ring or the net if the ball is above the ring and not touching the ring, even if the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is legal to hang on the ring if a player is avoiding an injury to himself or herself or another player.
The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending when a player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight ,entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket. On most layups, the ball is going up after it contacts the backboard. It is legal to pin the ball against the backboard if it still on the way up and not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference nor is it goaltending and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard, during a tap, or a try, so forcefully that it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, may be assessed a technical foul. When a player simply attempts to block a shot and accidentally slaps the backboard it is neither a violation nor is it a technical foul. |
I wish they'd change this
Quote:
|
BI vs GT
Quote:
1. A try or tap for goal. 2. On it's downward trajectory 3. Above the Rim 4. It has to have a chance to go in. Basket Interference has the following elements and only one must be active: 1. Live Ball in the imaginary cylinder 2. Live Ball on the rim or in the basket. When 1 is active, if the ball is touched we have BI. When 2 is active, if either the ball, rim or net is touched we have BI. You can have GT by either the Offense or Defense, but as someone else has said, offensive GT is very rare. You can not have GT when a team shoots at the wrong goal, because by definition this is not a try or tap for goal. You can have BI when a team shoots at the wrong goal, because BI does not require a try or tap for goal. It only requires that the ball be live and either in the cylinder or in/on the basket. For instance, if A1 is inbounding the ball and passes the ball to A2 on the other side of the basket. If the ball is in the imaginary cylinder when B2 touches the ball, score 2 points to team A for BI. |
Quote:
|
I agree
Quote:
|
I don't believe that if the player was trying to block a shot, and accidentally hits the backboard, he is going to strike it so hard as to have the same effect on the play as intentionally striking the backboard without trying to block the shot.
|
There we will have to disagree
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ok how's this
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
No, he didn't
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't agree with all of your reasoning
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you're wanting the backboard to be off limits like the rim, I think that's too draconian for the rarity of the play. The other thing here is that in this play, the backboard is rarely, if ever, hit while the ball is in the cylinder. |
Quote:
How many of you are going to call goaltending on the offensive team -- knowing what the penalty is for goaltending? |
Quote:
As for the not calling goaltending on the offensive team, I am confused:confused: why wouldn't we want to call that if it happens? |
It's covered in the rules: it's specifically allowed.
|
I see you are after me today. the rules are intended to be a level playing field.correct? How is it you are not allowed to touch the rim or net and cause it to move into the ball alltering the shot but you can do the same thing by just contacting the back board. does that make any sense? I guess it is a advantage for both teams to use.:)
|
The Fifth Element ...
Quote:
Comments? |
Sounds Good to me
Quote:
|
Quote:
What do you suggest? 1. Treat the backboard like the rim? 2. leave a subjective decision to the official on whether it altered or affected the shot? 3. another option? |
Quote:
|
No more so than the net or rim
Quote:
|
OPtion 1
Quote:
|
I don't like it, but I understand what you're suggesting now.
|
Quote:
|
Just Asking ???
Quote:
Oh, those were the good old days. Now let me tell you all a story about something called a 28 foot hash mark. Or would you rather hear a science lesson about an anomaly in the space time continuum called a change of status? |
Even Less Likely To Occur ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think part of the difference is the logistics of adding this to the rule. The rule is there more for the unsportsmanlike intent than for the result with regard to the shot. It's more like the rule about removing the jerseys. Another reason for the exclusion is, again, the percentage of slaps that affect the shot is so low. |
Not taking it personaly. just wondering if you see our point or not.:D
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Two thoughts: 1. Back when you were first starting out, I believe the rules about slapping the backboard and about BI in general were based mostly on the fragility of the peach baskets being used. :D 2. I had an AAU coach recently question a 5 second call using verbiage clearly indicating his understanding of the rule has not been updated since the days of the 28' mark. While I do remember the existence of the rule, it was from hanging out with my father while he was studying the rules during his officiating career. ;) |
I agree
Quote:
|
Quote:
How many times have you actually seen a play that you could have called BI under this proposed change? I mean, how many times have you seen a player strike the backboard while the ball is in the cylinder or on the rim? That's the times you could have called it. Now, further reduce that to the number of times you have seen that play, and it shook the rim enough to cause the ball to not go into the basket? That's the extent of the "need" for this change. |
Not Often,however....
Quote:
|
The multiple foul exists as a protection from a shooter getting clobbered after he's been fouled.
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. |
The multiple foul rule may very well exist because it was needed at one point to clean up the game. And it's continued existence prevents a return to jungle law.
|
What about the fan shaped back board?
Quote:
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? |
Actually, I'd like to revise my statement on the multiple foul rule.
I think it's merely in there as a natural result of certain definitions. Since the ball doesn't become dead on a shooting foul until the try ends, there has to be some sort of process in place to legally deal with a situation where a shooter gets fouled more than once. Even though we will virtually always pick one, there must be a way to deal with the multiple since it is a distinct possibility according to the rules. |
Quote:
Quote:
My secondary point is that the multiple foul is not a good comparison. Apples and PCs. |
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. |
I understand your point, however
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
rwest is correct
If hitting the rim or net is BI, then hitting the backboard should be also...that's just common sense.
|
Quote:
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. |
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. ;) |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I see rims move often. I haven't seen a backboard move significantly, at all, ever. |
Quote:
The backboard doesn't have to move "significantly", just any movement will move the rim. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
I'm afraid he might have left to Google impetus and transverse wave and succumbed to Search Overload. :D
|
It Was A Much Simplier Time ...
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. |
Weird, But It Could Happen ...
Quote:
|
© ???
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Ah, but..
Quote:
|
Quote:
Beyond that, I've forgotten the context of my earlier comment. :o |
Irregular Pass ...
Quote:
|
We all agree....
We all agree that hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim is a rare occasion. However, what I don't understand is the reluctance to make it part of the BI definition. It is such an easy and logically thing to do. If it is so rare, and it is, players are not going to change the way they play defense. If they hit the backboard while the ball is not on the rim, it's nothing and we won't call it. If it is, on that rare occasion, on the rim when contact occurs it should be penalized just like we penalize contact with the rim or net.
Can anyone argue that hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim should be allowed by the defense? Can you actually say that it is not basket interference? Forget the rarity of the situation. Do you actually believe the defense should be allowed to hit the backboard with the ball on the rim? I'm not asking if it should be included in the rule book. Just should it be allowed? And remember, forget how often this occurs. Look at this in a vacuum. Should this be a legal act? |
I'll just add this before leaving it alone. If it's not currently a problem while there's no rule preventing it, why add the rule?
|
As I believe the great Walter C. might have stated this situation:
NFHS 2009 -2010. It is what it is and that's the way it shall be. ;) |
Here's my last comment, i think
Quote:
Team A is down by 2 with 2 seconds on the clock. The ball is on the rim when B1 bangs the board in frustration. The ball falls off the rim. No basket. T up B1. A1 shoots the two free throws but misses the front end. They are down by 1 with .4 seconds left. They inbound the ball but can't get a shot off. Team B wins. Why allow the defense an advantage in this situation? A simple change to the BI definition (not a new rule as you suggest) would fix this. I could then award 2 points to team A and also penalize with a Technical foul. |
Quote:
How often is the touch REALLY part of "a legitimate block attempt?" |
Quote:
Of course, we could just make it more like volleyball. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Yes and T up the coach...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I agree
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're also right that you're not arguing for a new rule, just an addition to an existing rule. That said, the committee isn't likely to do this for a problem that doesn't exist. I'm really pretty ambivalent on this point (adding BI to this T, if the ball is in the cylinder), but I'm against calling it BI on a legitimate block attempt. I'm even more against making it BI when the ball isn't even in the cylinder. |
Quote:
|
Rwest is Still Correct
Nice job of making your point, rwest.
You have very legitimate arguments for a change to the BI rule, and just because some, maybe most, but I suspect only some, don't agree with you, doesn't make you any less correct. Nice job. |
Case play 10.3.4 A1 tries for a goal and (a) B1 jumps and attempts to block the shot but instead slaps the backboard and the ball goes into the basket; or(b)B1 vibrates the ring as a result of pulling on the net and the ball does not enter the basket. RULING: In (a) legal and the basket counts; snd (b) a thechnical foul is charged to B1 and there is no basket. I understand A easilly enough but doesn't B seem to be a little strange? Wouldn't it fall under BI. Or is there not enough info here?
|
The case does not specify whether the ball was on the ring or not. And since it doesn't say, we cannot assume the ball was on the ring at the time. If it were, I would be tempted to simply call it BI and move on. However, note that NFHS 10-3-4 specifically includes a try in flight and a try touching the backboard, which do not apply to BI.
ART. 4 . . . Illegally contact the backboard/ring by: a. Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage. b. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket. |
The ring is not touched just the net. Is there any specific case about just the net. ( this might be it:p) The T for slapping or gaining an advantage just mentions the backboard and Ring, not the net
|
Quote:
So, yeah, this is it. :D |
thanks bits.
so if you are going to pull on the net you better hope the rim contacts the ball before i returns to it's original position so you just get BI and not a "T" |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53am. |