Basket interference v. goal tending

[Rita C]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rita C

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

Not quite...

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).

[BillyMac]

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 agree by rule hitting the backboard is not basket interference, but logically it is. If a player hits the backboard and that prevents the ball from going in, what else is but basket interference? However, until they change the rules, I wont call it. I just don't agree with the rule committee's logic on this one.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Rita C

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

Goal Tending require 4 elements and all must be active:

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.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by rwest

I agree by rule hitting the backboard is not basket interference, but logically it is. If a player hits the backboard and that prevents the ball from going in, what else is but basket interference? However, until they change the rules, I wont call it. I just don't agree with the rule committee's logic on this one.

If the player intentionally strikes the backboard to ensure that the ball will not go into the basket - it is not basket interference - it is a technical foul. However, you must deem the act intentional - not accidental.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

If the player intentionally strikes the backboard to ensure that the ball will not go into the basket - it is not basket interference - it is a technical foul. However, you must deem the act intentional - not accidental.

I realize that. I'm talking about on a try for goal when the defender attempts to block the shot. If he hits the rim or net when attempting to block the shot we have BI, assuming the other factors are in play. Why not the backboard? I agree by rule we have nothing. But logic says it is basket interference. Again, I'm not talking about intentionally hitting the backboard.

[chartrusepengui]

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

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.

I had a scrimmage the other night where if the defender had hit the backboard it could have effected the ball going in the basket. And besides, even when we call a Technical, I think we should be able to count the basket. They prevented the ball from going in. I know by rule we can't and I won't until, if ever, they change the rule. It just doesn't make since to me to allow the defense to do that and not count the basket.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

I had a scrimmage the other night where if the defender had hit the backboard it could have effected the ball going in the basket.

Then it shouldn't matter since the defense was already penalized by causing the ball to go in the basket.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Then it shouldn't matter since the defense was already penalized by causing the ball to go in the basket.

I had a scrimmage the other night where if the defender had hit the backboard it could have affected the result of the play.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by rwest

I had a scrimmage the other night where if the defender had hit the backboard it could have affected the result of the play.

But apparently the defender didn't hit the backboard.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

But apparently the defender didn't hit the backboard.

However, if he did it would have been with enough force, in my opinion, to have an affect on the outcome.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

However, if he did it would have been with enough force, in my opinion, to have an affect on the outcome.

I think it's such a rare event the rules committee would rather not include the backboard in the BI rule.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think it's such a rare event the rules committee would rather not include the backboard in the BI rule.

I also think that to enact such a provision would cause defenders to become somewhat tentative when making perfectly legitimate defensive plays for fear they may accidentally give the opponents a basket. All over a fairly rare situation that would even more rarely result in a violation. And a violation that would involve a far more subjective judgment than any other part of the BI rule.