To quote scholary JR....
http://www.forumspile.com/Old-1950sHeadache.jpg

How about in the first passage, causing the ring to vibrate?

No.

The first part of Billy's statement simply tells us it's not basket interference to contact the rim or net while the ball doesn't have the rim as its base...even if it's in the cylinder...it didn't say it was legal to grab the rim...rather it said touch. Of course we can always issue a technical foul if a player grabbed the rim to gain an advantage.

Billy's second point I believe comes straight from a recent POE. No need to qualify it with 10-3-4b. One is going to have to strike the backboard with force to cause the rim to vibrate anyhow.

The point is Billy's list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of what is legal and what is not (though I'm sure he has that stashed away somewhere ;)). His list is intended to debunk some commonly held basketball myths.

Yes, I understood the general context. It was the "It is legal to touch the ring . . ." that seemed to stretch things a little. I'm with you on the grasping part, but that is 10-3-3. 10-3-4 simply says "contact", then (a) says "Placing a hand". There seems to be a lower standard in 10-3-4.

This is the one I was thinking needed supplementing, as opposed to qualifying. It struck me that causing ring vibration should be added to the two conditions Billy mentioned, "attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration."

Gotcha.

Billy committed heresy in Randall's eyes. He posted something with clarity.

Randall doesn't believe it's possible to explain anything and still be right in fewer than 1000 words.

Still waiting for the first time Randall posts an actual rule. Guess the a$$-hat thinks everyone walks around with a rule book in their back pocket.

He's a clown.

Exactly. And if someone could describe a situation in which merely touching the rim would create an advantage, I suppose that would show Billy's statement to be slightly inadequate.

Except Billy's statement is still true...it is legal to touch the rim/net when the ball isn't on the rim. You can play semantics with "place" vs. "grab" but 10-3-4a only says it's only illegal if it's to gain an advantage.

One can cause the rim to vibrate if it's a legit shot block attempt. Billy's and NFHS' point is we see players intentionally strike the backboard (that isn't a legit block attempt) often when frustrated or draw attention to oneself (think a dunk and slap on the board on the way down).

As Welpe pointed out, this list isn't meant to be a replacement for the rule book. Rather this list was made to aid officials and specifically to help inform fans on aspects of the rules that they otherwise wouldn't know.

Yep, and that's all I was pointing out, there.

Any of you guys ever seen a high school player with the ability to contact the ring or backboard and use it to their advantage somehow? I don't think I've ever seen that, including as a spectator.

It goes right back to knowing the purpose and intent of a rule. And that's also exactly why R10-3-3 and 10-4-1(i) says it's a "T" to grasp the rim, not merely touch it.

Yes. Several times and in different ways.