Help

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

LOL, I only corrected you because someone seems honestly confused about applying an exception to the BI rule to a technical foul.

That would be like allowing traveling because of 9-9-3.

As I said to APG, I was disregarding BI, entirely, so I couldn't be confused about it. My question was a very narrow one having to do with technicals for grasping during a dunk--which I regret ever asking, now. Grasping during dunking or attempted dunking is virtually universally allowed under the guise of injury prevention, right--even though in many cases it's theatrics, habit, or whatever. You guys don't call it unless you feel it's egregious or excessive, somehow, I assume. So, I was wondering how many of you would parse the language to include the case of an off-hand grasping the ring a bit early--to no advantage--as being within the limits of injury prevention (preemptive, as it may be), and how many of you would not care about advantage, and T it, regardless. For instance, Snaq, I would have guessed you would let it go if there was no advantage gained, given what you have said previously about contact, and since you don't care what coaches, players, or fans think about your judgment.

[APG]

I feel like most every official would call a T or the appropriate violation if a player grabbed the rim with the off-hand and then preceded to dunk the ball with the other hand. For the most part, we don't apply advantage/disadvantage to violations/technical fouls. I suppose you could say a player grabbed the rim to prevent injury and not call the T, but whenever I've seen this called it's pretty obvious that there was no threat of injury.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I feel like most every official would call a T or the appropriate violation if a player grabbed the rim with the off-hand and then preceded to dunk the ball with the other hand. For the most part, we don't apply advantage/disadvantage to violations/technical fouls. I suppose you could say a player grabbed the rim to prevent injury and not call the T, but whenever I've seen this called it's pretty obvious that there was no threat of injury.

As I said before, it's a "T" if the grasp wasn't done to prevent injury. That "T" makes the ball dead, so the subsequent dunk is moot. But if you feel the grasp was made to prevent an injury, no "T" but you still call the BI.

That obviously wasn't for your benefit. You knew that.

NFHS rule 4-6-1 and casebook play 9.11.1SitB for Randy.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As I said before, it's a "T" if the grasp wasn't done to prevent injury. That "T" makes the ball dead, so the subsequent dunk is moot. But if you feel the grasp was made to prevent an injury, no "T" but you still call the BI.

That obviously wasn't for your benefit. You knew that.

NFHS rule 4-6-1 and casebook play 9.11.1SitB for Randy.

I appreciate the cites. If I understand your position on your first point, you apply 10-3-3 strictly, even in light of what players commonly get away with while dunking--I have no problem with that. I also understand your second point--so you don't feel the Exception under 4-6-1 and 2 give us room to waive the BI call in this case, huh? Does everyone agree with that?

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I appreciate the cites. If I understand your position on your first point, you apply 10-3-3 strictly, even in light of what players commonly get away with while dunking--I have no problem with that. I also understand your second point--so you don't feel the Exception under 4-6-1 and 2 give us room to waive the BI call in this case, huh? Does everyone agree with that?

You have to call the basket interference since the exception only applies to a hand legally in contact with the ball. JR is correct in his interpretation.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

You have to call the basket interference since the exception only applies to a hand legally in contact with the ball. JR is correct in his interpretation.

I agree with him--that appears to be the rule as written. It just seems a little harsh to nail A1 for interference on his own dunk if we don't think he benfitted from the grasp.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I agree with him--that appears to be the rule as written. It just seems a little harsh to nail A1 for interference on his own dunk if we don't think he benfitted from the grasp.

It might help if you understood the basics. That's why I cited R4-6-1. if a player is grasping the basket while dunking the basket, that player touched a part of the basket while the ball was on or within the basket. No matter whether the basket grasp was legal or not, the dunk can NEVER count by rule.

It's a comprehension problem on your part, Randy. It's not the rule. The rule is straightforward.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I agree with him--that appears to be the rule as written. It just seems a little harsh to nail A1 for interference on his own dunk if we don't think he benfitted from the grasp.

I suppose, but you could apply that line of thinking to a host of violations.

A1 is throwing the ball inbounds after a made free throw...no backcourt pressure. A1 steps over the line and a portion of his toe is inbound. We still whistle the throw-in violation even though no real advantage was gained. Sometimes, them's the breaks.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I appreciate the cites. If I understand your position on your first point, you apply 10-3-3 strictly, even in light of what players commonly get away with while dunking--I have no problem with that. I also understand your second point--so you don't feel the Exception under 4-6-1 and 2 give us room to waive the BI call in this case, huh? Does everyone agree with that?

You can't waive a freaking rule EVER!!!!!

We, not "I', apply R10-3-3 as it's written and as per the direction we've been given by case plays, POE's etc.

The exception under 4-6-1 applies to a dunk attempt only. That exception states that after dunking, you can legally touch the ring. The common application of that exception by most experienced officials is that they will also include a legal quick grasp of the ring following a dunk under the "touch" part of the exception as long as the dunker immediately lets go. That was the purpose and intent of the rule under both NFHS and NCAA rules.

What we won't allow is that quick grasp of the ring after a dunk to develop into holding onto the ring with no one under you, swinging, pull-ups, etc. That's the purpose and intent of R10-3-3, and that's why that rule was enacted.