Almost dunk

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bmeansdfw

Sorry, but if any of you guys thinks that BI is the right call--not according to the textbook, but in reality--then you're all nuts.

Here's why.

If you watched the Big 12 tourney this week, you may have noticed that they installed new--and very stiff--nets. At least a dozen times, a ball came to rest in the bottom of the net. By your definition of BI, if an offensive player bumps the ball out of the net, it is offensive BI and the basket would be disallowed; however, if the defensive player does the same thing (to help out, he thinks), there is no call because the scorer and everyone else thinks the basket is good.

I think this is a case where intent and purpose of the rules comes into play and I'm going out on a limb to say this wasn't it when this rule was written.

Was it intended (was it ever imagined?) that a player be penalized for bouncing a dunk off his own head? Probably not, but at least a player is punished for his own action in this case.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bmeansdfw

Sorry, but if any of you guys thinks that BI is the right call--not according to the textbook, but in reality--then you're all nuts.

Here's why.

If you watched the Big 12 tourney this week, you may have noticed that they installed new--and very stiff--nets. At least a dozen times, a ball came to rest in the bottom of the net. By your definition of BI, if an offensive player bumps the ball out of the net, it is offensive BI and the basket would be disallowed; however, if the defensive player does the same thing (to help out, he thinks), there is no call because the scorer and everyone else thinks the basket is good.

I'm just saying that the rim and plane should be determinate of a made basket, not the net--otherwise, we would need standard length nets installed on every goal to make sure the proverbial playing field was level across the board.

People who aren't officials shouldn't be lecturing officials on rules. Feel free to write the NCAA rulesmakers with your vision of "The Way Things Ought To Be" though.

NFHS and NCAA rules are the same. If a live ball comes to rest and remains within the basket without passing through, the try is awarded. The same is true for free throw attempts. At that point, the ball becomes dead. Basket interference does not apply to dead balls. That's why any player(offensive or defensive) can legally "bump the ball out of the net" at that point without penalty. Hell, they could even bring you down from Row 163 Seat 46 to bump the ball out of the net at that point. It just doesn't matter.

And as already noted, nets are standardized by rule. And they are also quickly fixed or replaced if sticking problems do occur.

The rulesmakers have already covered situations like what happened in the Big 12 tournament, or at any other time that particular play may come up also. The playing field is level across the board.

Your version of "reality" is that of the typical fanboy. There's no actual rules knowledge involved but you're always willing to criticize that of which you have no clue.

It's that time of year.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bmeansdfw

Sorry, but if any of you guys thinks that BI is the right call--not according to the textbook, but in reality--then you're all nuts.

Here's why.

If you watched the Big 12 tourney this week, you may have noticed that they installed new--and very stiff--nets. At least a dozen times, a ball came to rest in the bottom of the net. By your definition of BI, if an offensive player bumps the ball out of the net, it is offensive BI and the basket would be disallowed; however, if the defensive player does the same thing (to help out, he thinks), there is no call because the scorer and everyone else thinks the basket is good.

I'm just saying that the rim and plane should be determinate of a made basket, not the net--otherwise, we would need standard length nets installed on every goal to make sure the proverbial playing field was level across the board.

Like JR has said, you're comparing apples and oranges. There's a rule for when a goal scores, and it's when the ball passes through or remains in the net. Going halfway down and coming back out is not one of those two scenarios.

Maybe sometimes a two handed tomahawk outta control dunk isn't the best choice, huh?

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by bmeansdfw

Sorry, but if any of you guys thinks that BI is the right call--not according to the textbook, but in reality--then you're all nuts.

Here's why.

If you watched the Big 12 tourney this week, you may have noticed that they installed new--and very stiff--nets. At least a dozen times, a ball came to rest in the bottom of the net. By your definition of BI, if an offensive player bumps the ball out of the net, it is offensive BI and the basket would be disallowed; however, if the defensive player does the same thing (to help out, he thinks), there is no call because the scorer and everyone else thinks the basket is good.

I'm just saying that the rim and plane should be determinate of a made basket, not the net--otherwise, we would need standard length nets installed on every goal to make sure the proverbial playing field was level across the board.

Sorry Bubba, but we can't call games based on what you think should be the rule. This one is cut and dry and no gray area. The ball by rule must clear the net. If the NCAA wanted it to be the "plane of the rim" they would write it as such.

I was at a Sweet 16 game at Texas University (My wife was an Aggie so I can't refer to it as The University of Texas ) when Duke was playing Michigan State a few years ago. Sheldon Williams had a break away dunk that hit his head while in the net and bounced back up and out never clearing the net. No basket... play on.

Thanks for playing though.

[Adam]

I can't wait to read his other post.

[hoopguy]

Disagree on the BI call. I got nuthin, play on.

Rule 4-6 Exception - Dunking or Stuffing is legal and is not Basket Interference.

The ball needs to go through the net to be a basket so no basket and no BI play on. Treat it as a missed dunk which is all it is.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

Disagree on the BI call. I got nuthin, play on.

Rule 4-6 Exception - Dunking or Stuffing is legal and is not Basket Interference.

The ball needs to go through the net to be a basket so no basket and no BI play on. Treat it as a missed dunk which is all it is.

Try citing the complete exception. The EXCEPTION says "In Arts. 1 or 2, if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters the basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference." The act of "dunking" ended when the player's hand(s) lost contact with the ball. And at that time the EXCEPTION ends also. And after the EXCEPTION ends, rule 4-6-1 which says that it's BI for anyone to touch the ball while the ball is on or within the basket is back in effect.

Taking one part of the EXCEPTION out of context changes the meaning of the EXCEPTION. When the ball inside the net hit the player's head, the player's hand(s) were NOT in contact with the ball. And that's why the EXCEPTION doesn't apply at that time. And that's why your theorem is wrong.

[hoopguy]

It is all part of the one single act of dunking. His head just happens to be in the wrong place, directly where the ball is going in the net. My opinion is that it is all part of the same act of dunking. How can the exception end when the players hands lose contact with the ball? The exceptions whole purpose is to say there is an exception while dunking to not be in violation of BI rules after the hands release the dunk. Just picture 99% of dunks the ball is released and then the dunker is hanging on the rim or at lease his hands are still on the rim AFTER the release of the ball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

It is all part of the one single act of dunking. His head just happens to be in the wrong place, directly where the ball is going in the net. My opinion is that it is all part of the same act of dunking. How can the exception end when the players hands lose contact with the ball? The exceptions whole purpose is to say there is an exception while dunking to not be in violation of BI rules after the hands release the dunk. Just picture 99% of dunks the ball is released and then the dunker is hanging on the rim or at lease his hands are still on the rim AFTER the release of the ball.

I seem to recall some case play or interp where the player carries the ball into the cylinder (legal so far), then loses contact with the ball (still legal), then recontacts the ball with the hands (now it's illegal). I'd say the same thing happens if the subsequent contact is with the head.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I seem to recall some case play or interp where the player carries the ball into the cylinder (legal so far), then loses contact with the ball (still legal), then recontacts the ball with the hands (now it's illegal). I'd say the same thing happens if the subsequent contact is with the head.

Yup. There is such a case player (but I'm not spending the time to look it up).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

It is all part of the one single act of dunking. His head just happens to be in the wrong place, directly where the ball is going in the net. My opinion is that it is all part of the same act of dunking. How can the exception end when the players hands lose contact with the ball? The exceptions whole purpose is to say there is an exception while dunking to not be in violation of BI rules after the hands release the dunk. Just picture 99% of dunks the ball is released and then the dunker is hanging on the rim or at lease his hands are still on the rim AFTER the release of the ball.

If it's all part of the same act of dunking, then the following scenario would be legal---->A1 dunks the ball; the ball spins back up without going completely through and is circling the ring or is still in the cylinder; A1 jumps again and tips the ball in.

Or the player is hanging on the rim when the ball spins back up and he then taps it back in while hanging there?

You're really trying to say that plays like that are legal?

Sorry, hoopguy. You're mis-interpreting the rule. You're refusing to believe the existence of the first sentence of the EXCEPTION that you're trying to use.