Just hold your ...expletive deleted... for a second.:D You can only have a goal when a live ball enters the basket from above.This play concerns a live ball entering from below.As soon as it goes up through from below,it's a violation and the ball's dead.Can't have BI on a dead ball then.

Not true, JR. The play we're talking about is the following:

If the ball gets stuck before passing all the way through, why would it be dead? It's still a live ball within the basket. If somebody touches it, it's gotta be BI. No?

How can you have BI when you don't have a shot or try? R5-1-1 says "a goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from ABOVE....".If it enters from below,ergo,thou cannot score a goal because it can never enter from above to qualify as a try because if it does go above,it is immediately a violation,and thus a dead ball.

Can't fool me,boy! I wasn't born yesterday!

Is that a serious question, JR? Can you say "throw-in"? No try is necessary for BI to occur.

Chuck

Chuck, he's got you there! :D

So you are saying that you can have BI on a ball that is being thrown UP through the bottom of the basket? That's ludicrous!

Howewer,the language in the damn rulebook states that,no matter how ludicrous it may seem, BI DOES occur when a player touches the ball or basket when the ball is within the basket.I also don't believe that it states anywhere that it HAS to occur on a ball going into the basket from above.Methinks that the NFHS Rules Commitee did not not envision encountering such a cunning linguist as yourself,Sir(Yes,I have an appropriate smilie. No,I sureashell ain't gonna post it.)!

Now,please enlighten me as to whether you would ever call it that way.

Why thank you for your kind words about my linguistic skills. I practice them every chance I can.

As to enlightenment, in all seriousness, yes. I would absolutely call BI if the ball was touched in the cylinder while entering from below. I honestly don't see how you could NOT call it.

Chuck,I just can't agree with your logic on this one. The purpose and intent of the BI rule is to penalize a player from preventing or aiding a score on a ball that may possibly be entering the basket from above. In this case,however,you NEVER COULD have a score if the ball was untouched from below. If the ball just goes part way above the rim from below and then falls back through,are you gonna count a basket? According to the logic that you are using,you would have to. If the ball goes completely above the rim,it becomes a moot point anyway because it is an immediate violation and dead ball.

Could you enlighten me further as to why you would call it this way? If the ball was touching the ring directly from the side,and a player then touched it or pinned it sideways against the rim,you would have to call BI too,using your same logic.The ball IS touching the basket,after all.

Ya' know - we didn't have the problem of the ball going up through the bottom of the hoop when I started officiating. They didn't cut the bottom off the peach baskets until my third year. http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/...smiley-064.gif

First, I think that's not the purpose and intent of the rule. The casebook states clearly that you can have BI during a throw-in, and that's a situation in which points cannot be scored either. If the ball were to enter the basket (from either direction :) ), it would be a violation. So BI can be called even when no points can be scored by the offense. So the purpose of the rule is broader than what you state above.

Second, even if that were the purpose of the rule, I'm not sure I would care, since the wording of the rule makes this a cut and dried - by definition - violation. In other words, it's a call that can be defended without reservation from the rules.

Personally, I think the jump stop violates the purpose of the traveling rule. The jump stop allows the ball handler to go up and return to the floor with the ball. That's a travel, in my mind. Nevertheless, the rule is written in such a way that the jump stop is legal, and that's how I call it.

I think this sitch is similar. Nobody can ever say you missed it if you call it by the definition.

Chuck,
I agree with you on the BI. What are your thoughts on the violation from below? Does the ball have to exit the net or not? Also the throw-in casebook play that you have been mentioning is 9.11.2 Situation C.

Second, even if that were the purpose of the rule, I'm not sure I would care, since the wording of the rule makes this a cut and dried - by definition - violation. In other words, it's a call that can be defended without reservation from the rules.

[/B][/QUOTE]Lemme see now. The definion for BI says "touches the ball while the ball is on the basket". Note that it does NOT say "on TOP of the basket". If you are gonna take this literally,and call it on balls coming up from below,you and Nevada had better be prepared to call BI everytime a player touches a ball when it is contacting the side or bottom of the rim OR the mesh,no matter how it got there.

I can see it now.Pass touches the mesh underneath. Player now touches the pass while it is contacting the mesh. TWEET! I got BI! Good luck to both of ya! :D

PS- Any idea why they also specified in the definition of BI that the cylinder has the basket ring as it's lower base,and not the bottom of the basket,which would be the bottom of the mesh? Couldn't be because they envisioned a shot coming down from above,and not below,could it? NAH!:D

Thanks for the case reference. There's also a case about BI when a player gets confused and shoots the ball toward his opponent's basket.

As to exiting the net, I think in 99.9999% of the cases, the ball will exit the net anyway. But in that one case where it doesn't. . .? (Flipping coin. . .) I think the answer is yes. The net is part of the basket. If the ball is still within the net, then the ball has not passed entirely through the basket. So in order to call the violation, the ball must be entirely above the rim and no longer touching the net. Who's with me? (No need to answer, JR!)

Whoa there,Tiny Tim!

What violation exactly are you calling when the ball is entirely above the rim? BI or throwing the ball through from below? What you and Nevada are claiming is that it is a BI violation if the ball is touched before it goes all the way through from below-right?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 30th, 2003 at 09:32 AM]

Maybe I've become confused with the different scenarios, but I thought I was talking about the violation for passing through the basket from below. Isn't the rule tha the ball must pass through the basket? Or is it only that the ball must pass entirely through the rim? Sorry if I've muddled the original purpose of the thread.

Chuck