So folks, did the crew miss something on this one?
 

<embed width="440" height="420" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://v5.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=2w69raq&s=5"><br><font size="1"><a href="http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2w69raq&s=5">

Yes.

Good answer.

I'll bite, no trey signal?

It's BI, Fullor. But nobody ever calls it.

Especially when it goes in.

Edit.....oops offense grabs net. Yes, BI, in this one, no call from me

So the rules guy in me would ask what's the difference between calling/not calling this one and calling it if the player had touched the ball while it was on the rim? Both are BI.

I have.

So you're waving this off?

Yes, I am. Film don't lie.

oook, I always wondered why they misnamed this violation basket interference.

Are you wondering why it's this particular instance is still called basket interference? If so, because by definition, the the rim, flange, and net are considered part of the basket.

Now by rule is the above play basket interference? Sure it is...but I'm not sure this particular play was the intent of the rule.

I'm sure it wasn't, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to pick the nit. OTOH, I've had the defense do it and I haven't stopped the game and just allowed the basket to count.

The one time I called this in the past 2 years, the ball came halfway out above the rim, so it was pretty much a no-brainer.

And yet...there it is on film for everyone to see. To be honest, it might trip my trigger in the moment or it might not. Probably depends on what happens to the ball.

How's that for wishy-washy?

No, I know the rule and understand completely what constitutes "the basket".

I agree, by a very strict reading of the rule, this is BI. However, I feel pretty confident it doesn't fit the intent.

If it wasn't the intent of the rule, which you're sure it wasn't, then there's really no nit to pick, is there? Your real world examples still haven't convinced me that BI is the correct call on the play in the OP's video.