Obvious? It seems we have three pages of posts that do not all agree. That doesn't seem obvious.

The action was obvious, I don't see anyone disputing that. Some are just saying they wouldn't call it a T.

Unless he has springs in his fingers.

But the obvious illegal action still boils down to the judgment of the floor officials. To pull the trigger or not to pull the trigger??

Now we're getting to a different philosophical question. Are there contexts in which there's an 'obvious' rule violation and you're not blowing your whistle? I think we'd all have to agree that there are. Is the violation in this video obvious? I think it is pretty hard to make a case to the contrary. But if I was in the moment, I probably would have had nothing.

Those that are saying no T are doing so by applying a qualifier to the rule that doesn't exist.....that he didn't grasp the rim too much. But, the rule doesn't consider how much....just whether he did or did not.

That said, and even in spite of my prior comments, I may or may not call it depending on the overall situation...yeah, I did say that. :p

No one is qualifying anything any more than those that think this is a "no-brainer" T either. Because I have not seen any interpretation that says clearly what is or what is not a hanging on the rim dunk under the NF rules. And certainly not anything that shows what is or is not on video. So what I think it comes down to how much someone actually sees dunking in their game. I could find much more suspect dunks than this one and this was not even close to those that are not even called a T. Again, there is a reason why some guys get questioned for their ability to call certain things and this being a "no-brainer" T would suggest something about those saying that. There is clearly a debate to be had, but let us not act like one side is so much right and the other side is so wrong.

Peace

Don't you have to add that qualifier though to properly judge plays? If we went just by the strict wording of the rule, any grasp of the rim would be a T no matter how short(not including injury prevention). Do you think the Brittney Griner dunk should have been a T?

Whether the rule says explicitly or not, we add that qualifier as to how we judge the play IMO.

By rule, no. Did they grab the rim or not? It is a simple question. That is all the rule requires us to judge....not was it too long. Unless it is for safety, the rules say it is a T if a player grasps the rim.

Just because minor occurrences of grasping the rim are often not called doesn't mean it is actually legal any more than uncalled travels are.

In my opinion, if the grabbing of the rim is used to raise the body, it is a T....and I've seen more than enough to tell when a the effects on the player's body are from just making the dunk vs. unnecessarily raising the body.

And in this specific case, the player used the rim to lift himself high enough to get his head above the rim....I've never seen a dunk where a player's head gets that high after the dunk without grabbing the rim....they may be near that high before the dunk but they don't start to come down and go back up without some extra help.

Now, in a game, I might not always call it. It depends on the game....certainly not in the Griner case, even if I felt she violated the letter of the rule. It would have simply been wrong to call something on that.

A Micki King maneuver
 

I don't think the mere act of pulling one's self up after a dunk is a T, they have to land after taking their momentum to the hoop and I don't think fear of the other team getting two and the ball ought to be a factor in doing a pull-up motion to stop the momentum and allow a straight drop to the floor. Didn't any of you people ever climb trees as a kid? Two hundred something bounds on an ankle or knee the wrong way ends seasons and careers.

I also don't think it matters that there are no bodies below the shooter; one can land just as badly on an open court as on another person.

However, a one-and-a-half gainer after the shot is pure gymnastics, intended to call attention to himself and for no other reason and deserved a T.

Correct, it doesn't. The rule allows a player to grasp the ring to avoid injury. But as others have said, I don't think the kid was grasping the ring to avoid injury. This looked like more of a "flourish" at the end of the move. As MTDS and others have pointed out, the kid's head went higher after he put the ball through and the only way that happens is by pulling himself up.

If I'd called a T in that spot my reaction to the complaints of the coach would've been "Coach, did he need to do what he did to protect himself or actually make the shot?"

Ding, Ding, Ding this is the winner for me.
He is going under the rim, during the jump he rotates his body 180 degrees from his original direction. When he dunks his hips and legs are not yet vertical under his upper torso. The grasp and pull, brings his body vertical he then lets go and returns to the floor. Nothing other than insuring his ability to land safely.

I watched this clip, read all the interesting comments, and watched the dunk several more times. I have nothing.

I am not tall enough to do this, but when I was a youngster in the motherland (Indiana) we often played on lowered rims. I know this may be too much in the weeds, but I think there are a few things to consider. First, where he dunks the ball on the rim has less give than if he dunked the ball in front. The force of the dunk itself is going to cause him to go up. I just don't think he can dunk the ball with force and avoid this. Second, the move itself is something I looked at. If he dunked and didn't grab the rim as much, his momentum would have likely kept him moving parallel to the end line and he may have landed on his back since his feet were not under him. I think this is what BNR was referring to.

I have to say that having done something similar myself, even on a much lower rim, I understand why he did what he did. I just don't see a T here.

For those who do have a T, do you think there were any plays in the championship game last night worthy of a T for hanging on the rim? I don't remember the time or the team, but there was one play - on the right of the screen as I was watching at home - that should have been a T. What do you think?

Perhaps. I think each level of game gets a slightly different threshold of what it takes to make a T. In a HS game (like the one being discussed through the thread), the threshold is lower. In a college game, the threshold is higher. In the NBA, it is even higher. Same rule, just different levels of acceptable actions. The OP was a HS game.

In the situation you refer to in the championship game (from memory) the player did grab the rim but only did so until he stabilized and dropped. Unlike the player in the OP, he didn't yank himself up a foot or more higher than he needed to do.

I can understand what you are saying Camron, but I don't agree with what you are saying about the NBA threshold. Some things in the NBA are dealt with much quicker/better than other levels. Either players hang on the rim - on national TV - more than college or the NBA officials are less hesitant to call it. Either NBA players hand check more than college players or the NBA officials are less hesitant to call it. JMO

Admittedly, I don't spend a lot of time watching the NBA so you're probably right. I was just extrapolating based on some limited observations of what I've seen in the NBA in the past.