Help

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

... There was some very good points made in this thread by various posters. ...

The best being my assertion that this guy an a$$-hat and clown.

He accused someone of changing his play situation. How can that be when he never once described a play or quoted a rule?

I guarantee he is incapable of describing a play and then quoting a rule that would apply.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Shut up Snaq*...I knew what I was saying.



*Of course you are correct.

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.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Back in the middle of the twentieth century, in order to charge a technical foul for slapping the backboard, didn't the official need to observe the backboard vibrating during a try? If so, maybe this is what's confusing RandyBrown because somewhere along the way, I believe, the NFHS took away the vibrate part of the rule.

Where's Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. when you need him? Probably calling some poor, young, high school pitcher for a balk because he scratched his nose while on the pitcher's mound.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Defensive player puts one hand on one side of the board to steady himself and swats the ball away on the other side with the other hand.

Thus, the "Ralph Sampson Rule".

[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 BillyMac

Back in the middle of the twentieth century, in order to charge a technical foul for slapping the backboard, didn't the official need to observe the backboard vibrating during a try? If so, maybe this is what's confusing RandyBrown because somewhere along the way, I believe, the NFHS took away the vibrate part of the rule.

Where's Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. when you need him? Probably calling some poor, young, high school pitcher for a balk because he scratched his nose while on the pitcher's mound.

Billy, there was a lot of confusion to go around, because multiple things got brought up during the discourse. You're back on 10-3-4, where I started. The confusion I am thought to suffer commenced when we moved on to 10-3-3, and someone then broght up basket interference thinking I was involving it, somehow, but I was not.

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.

That sounds like a practical, middle-of-the-road response to my question/situation. Thank you. Anyone diverge from this?

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Billy, there was a lot of confusion to go around, because multiple things got brought up during the discourse. You're back on 10-3-4, where I started. The confusion I am thought to suffer commenced when we moved on to 10-3-3, and someone then broght up basket interference thinking I was involving it, somehow, but I was not.

You're the one who brought BI into the discussion by saying:

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

An interesting one: Isn't that legal, because done while dunking?

The exception noted in the rule book for dunking is for BI, not for a technical foul. IOW, grasping the rim is a T. Period. End of story. The only exception to that is if the player is trying to prevent an injury; and that does not require a dunk to be attempted.

[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 Snaqwells

You're the one who brought BI into the discussion by saying:



The exception noted in the rule book for dunking is for BI, not for a technical foul. IOW, grasping the rim is a T. Period. End of story. The only exception to that is if the player is trying to prevent an injury; and that does not require a dunk to be attempted.

Don't be so pessimistic. The exception you are referencing is in the definition of BI, right? I hadn't even considered it. I was talking about the injury prevention aspect, and how dunkers are commonly allowed to get away with what seems to be a loose enforcement of 10-3-3 in deference to the mere chance that the grasping may be prophylactic. Given the latitude they are allowed, my question came down to who strictly enforces 10-3-3 in situations with the off-hand getting there a bit early, with no advantage gained because of it.

[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.