I have a question about BI. In a summer league game the other day, a player on a fast break went in for a layup. His teammate followed closely behind. He shot the layup and it started rolling on the rim. His teammate (the one in hot pursuit) jumped and tried to slam the ball in while it was on the rim. I called the basket interference. But the ball did not go in but instead it bounced off the back of the rim and flew toward mid court. I had already blown my whistle and called BI and gave the ball to the other team at the baseline. My question is: is it offensive basket interference if the ball does not go in? Or, should I have blown the whistle only if it had gone in or if had been done by the defense and not gone in?

There's no such thing as offensive BI or defensive BI. There's simply BI. The same rule applies to both teams.

Whether the ball went in or not, your call was correct.

That's what I was hoping to hear, thanks, Ralph.

Not completely the same.
 

You are right there is not "offensive" or "defensive" BI, but there is a difference in whether points are scored or taken off the board, depending on which team commits the violation. And even thought I know what you meant, someone out there might get confused by "the rules applies to both teams" comments.

Peace

I'm talkng about the rule, not the penalty.
 

9-11
A player shall not commit basket interference. Basket interference occurs when a player:
ART. 1 Touches the ball or basket, (including the net), when the ball is on or within either basket.
ART. 2 Touches the ball when it is touching the cylinder having the ring as its lower base.
ART. 3 Touches the ball outside the cylinder while reaching through the basket from below.

No mention of offense, defense, or the penalty.

Ralph,
Why are you thanking yourself?

Oatmealqueen, I wasn't thanking myself, I was thanking BktBallRef. That is why I put the commas in before and after "thanks." Thanks, Ralph.

She's yankin' your chain, Ralph. :) The commas make it sound as if you're speaking to Ralph. Try it this way and it's a lot clearer: "That's what I was hoping to hear. Thanks, Ralph."

Just having a little fun at your expense! :D We've had the Spelling Police, the Grammar Police, and now the Punctuation Police!!

Chuck

Just teasin' ya...

I would give a lot to hear from I. M. Shirley Wright again, though!

Ah, the beauty of commas.

Reference:
My grandmother, who snorts crack, is 82 years old.
-vs-
My grandmother who snorts crack is 82 years old.

and

I'd like some beef jerky.
-vs-
I'd like some beef, jerky.

I'm having a hard time distinguishing these two sentences. Seems to me that the commas make no real difference. :confused:

In the comma-ized (yes - I made it up) sentence, "who snorts crack" becomes an independent (I think) clause. It implies that you have one grandmother and she snorts crack. The sentence without commas implies that you have two (or more) grandmothers, and you are talking about the one who snorts crack.

Glad to see I can help with English, if not with basketball. :p

This is a great example of how experience tinges our understanding of language. I equated those two sentences precisely b/c I have only one grandmother. So distinguishing between grandmothers (as in the comma-ized sentence) is irrelevant for me, thus I ignored the obvious meaning. Very cool. :cool:

Chuck

The real question is "Can you help with drug addiction!?!"

PS "who snorts crack" with commas around it is not an independent clause, it's a participial phrase. An independent clause could stand as a full sentence with all the various parts.