NCAA rules - basket in and out

[bearclause]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What else could it be?

The ball is not in control of either team. The ball is in contact with the rim...which means it would be basket interference for either team to contact the ball. Even without a specific rule as we have , the only out is for the referee to blow it dead...otherwise the two teams would both stand there and dare the other to knock it free. Since there has been no infraction that would award the ball to one team or the other the only option is to go to the arrow.

Well - it occurs to me that if a team shoots the ball and misses it so badly that it wedges on the side of the rim, it might be considered an "infraction" with possession awarded to the defensive team. Would anyone really object if the rule were changed?

Specifically for free-throws - isn't an otherwise live ball that completely misses the rim/flange awarded to the defensive team?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bearclause

Well - it occurs to me that if a team shoots the ball and misses it so badly that it wedges on the side of the rim, it might be considered an "infraction" with possession awarded to the defensive team. Would anyone really object if the rule were changed?

Specifically for free-throws - isn't an otherwise live ball that completely misses the rim/flange awarded to the defensive team?

But it didn't completely miss. And it doesn't take a bad miss to get there. Some of those occurrences hit the iron in what look like normal shots....just like the one you described.

The point of it being a violation for completely missing is so that the shooter can't just throw the ball to his teammate and call it a miss.

The ball getting wedged is neither good nor bad. Neither team deserves the ball more than the other...hence, the AP makes sense.

Note that exactly the same ruling applies if this happens in the normal course of play....even on a shot that may or may not be tipped by the defense or even if it was not even a shot at all (a deflected pass, for example). To change the FT rule only just adds complexity.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

To change the FT rule only just adds complexity.

Camron:

And we both know that the NCAA and NFHS do not want to make the rules any more complex than they already are. ROFLMAO

MTD, Sr.

[bearclause]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron:

And we both know that the NCAA and NFHS do not want to make the rules any more complex than they already are. ROFLMAO

MTD, Sr.

I understand that the definition of traveling for a player on the ground simplifies to either rolling over or getting up, rather than the ref trying to establish where the pivot foot is or whether or not a foot was dragged.

I know NCAA recently changed the goaltend rule such that once a shot attempt hits the backboard, it's assumed to be on its downward flight. Most shots seem to have backspin, so I suppose it's rare for a ball hitting the backboard to still be on the way up although it's not impossible. That was always rather hard to judge, although it's always been tough trying to figure out if a shot was on the way down even without hitting the backboard.