Help

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

Don't we have to qualify and/or supplement these a bit with 10-3-4?

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Don't we have to qualify and/or supplement these a bit with 10-3-4?

What needs to be qualified? What is incorrect about the statement? Billy pulled that particular statement from a "Commonly Misunderstood Rules" piece that he keeps.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

What needs to be qualified? What is incorrect about the statement? Billy pulled that particular statement from a "Commonly Misunderstood Rules" piece that he keeps.

It looks fine to me.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Welpe

It looks fine to me.

I know it's dangerous because the next 1,000 page novel might follow, but I'm curious as to what he meant by his statement. It looked fine to me as well.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I know it's dangerous because the next 1,000 page novel might follow, but I'm curious as to what he meant by his statement. It looked fine to me as well.

To quote a scholarly television production: "Here we go."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Welpe

To quote a scholarly television production: "Here we go."

To quote scholary JR....

[RandyBrown]

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

No.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No.

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

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.

[Welpe]

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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 ii a player grabbed the rim to gain an advantage.

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.

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.

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."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

This post by randall says absolutely nothing.

Here are the rules he cites:

Originally Posted by NFHS 10-3-4 Player Technical

...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 to tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

randall doesn't grasped these rules because he never officiated in his life and doesn't understand the concept of judgement. He doesn't understand that officials have to judge advantage and intent. He thinks judgement should be hard coded somewhere in the rule book.

He is upset because when he attends his HS games different officials have differing judgement on the same or similar plays and there are no concrete words in the rule book spelling out how judgement should be determined from official to official.


You'll have to excuse my little mini-rant but I was out of town the last 2 weeks on business and couldn't really address this clown like I wanted to.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Don't we have to qualify and/or supplement these a bit with 10-3-4?

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

What needs to be qualified? What is incorrect about the statement? Billy pulled that particular statement from a "Commonly Misunderstood Rules" piece that he keeps.

Catching up since I have my hands on NFHS rule & case books now.

Randall, as usual, did not ask a legitimate question here. Just threw out a rule number in a vague manner. I guarantee if I read through this entire thread he never once explains what he meant by this question.