Ball goes through bottom of hoop

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Correct?

The ball is within the basket, and a player touched the basket. How could it NOT be BI? There's not even judgment to be applied. It obviously fits the definition.

In short, correct.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

The ball is within the basket, and a player touched the basket. How could it NOT be BI? There's not even judgment to be applied. It obviously fits the definition.

In short, correct.

Bobby Knight gonna love you,Chuckie!

NCAA Rule 9-16-Basket Interference and Goaltending Penalties--Article 4--"When the violation results from touching the ball when it is in the basket after ENTERING FROM BELOW,NO POINTS SHALL BE SCORED and the ball shall be awarded to the opponent at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occured."

There's a violation,it is in the BI section,but you never award points.You only award points from above.Were you aware of this one,Chuck?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 1st, 2003 at 10:18 AM]

[ChuckElias]

Ummmm, yes? Yeah, yes, of course! But we were talking FED, weren't we?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Ummmm, yes? Yeah, yes, of course! But we were talking FED, weren't we?

But even in Fed, how could you justify awarding points when calling BI on something that was NOT a shot attempt?

[ChuckElias]

Hmmmm, you may may have missed part of our discussion, BITS. I alluded to this earlier in the thread, but I'll give a little more detail this time. Consider the following two plays:

1) A1 has the ball OOB for a throw-in in A's frontcourt. A1 throws the ball toward A's basket trying to "alley-oop" the ball to A2. However, as the ball is directly over the basket, and in the imaginary cylinder, B2 swats away the pass.

2) A1 has the ball in A's backcourt. B1 knocks the ball away and a scramble ensues. A2 recovers the ball, still in the backcourt, but gets confused and throws the ball toward B's basket. A1 realizes that if the ball goes in, the points will be awarded to Team B. So A1 jumps to knock the ball away from the basket. As the ball is on the rim, A1 swats it away.

So what do we have here? We have two situations in which there is no try, and yet in both situations, we have BI and will award points to the offended team.

In Play 1, the ball is live (b/c it's a throw-in), but it is not a try (b/c it would be a violation for the ball to go in the basket). But since it's a live ball in the cylinder, nobody can touch it. When B2 deflects the pass, we score 2 for Team A.

Likewise in Play 2, we do not have a try, b/c A2 is throwing the ball toward his opponent's basket. However, A1 still may not touch the ball while it is on the rim. Therefore, we score 2 even without a try.

It may seem funny, but if you know the definition of BI it makes perfect sense. Hope that helps.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

But even in Fed, how could you justify awarding points when calling BI on something that was NOT a shot attempt?

In Chuck's defense(and Lord knows I don't do THAT often ),the language in the NFHS rulebook doesn't explicitly cover this particular play.The language DOES suggest that the criteria needed for BI might be satisfied,even though the ball is going up in the basket,rather than coming down.I really think that you have to envision the spirit and intent of the Goaltending and BI rules to get this one right-in the absence of a definitive case play.The rules for BI and GT,I believe,were put in to stop players from preventing a goal that was possibly about to be legally scored,or to stop players from aiding the ball to go through their basket(i.e. scoring a goal) when it might not do so without their help.The definition of a goal is a live ball that enters the basket from ABOVE,and then goes through.Coming from below,you can never meet that definition--because if it does clear the ring from below,it's an immediate violation.Just seems like common sense to me.You don't want to award something that the offended team could never have attained anyway.

Even in the NCAA rulebook,they put the violation and penalty in with the BI definition,even though it doesn't carry the normal BI penalty if the defense commits the infraction.It probably should be called something different there too,to avoid confusion.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 1st, 2003 at 02:11 PM]

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The rules for BI and GT,I believe,were put in to stop players from preventing a goal that was possibly about to be legally scored,or to stop players from aiding the ball to go through their basket(i.e. scoring a goal) when it might not do so without their help.The definition of a goal is a live ball that enters the basket from ABOVE,and then goes through.Coming from below,you can never meet that definition--because if it does clear the ring from below,it's an immediate violation.Just seems like common sense to me.You don't want to award something that the offended team could never have attained anyway.

And that is what has bugged me about what I think I'm hearing in this discussion. Awarding points because of BI for a ball that entered the basket from the bottom seems to violate what I understand to be the spirit of the rule.

It may be defensible by consulting the strict letter of the law, but I think it would be a violation of the spirit of the rule to call it. It certainly would violate the "law of least astonishment."

All of which I argue from the point of view of the spirit of the rule and feel for the game, not the letter of the law, which would appear to support awarding the points.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Awarding points because of BI for a ball that entered the basket from the bottom seems to violate what I understand to be the spirit of the rule.

And the NCAA agrees with you. As JR pointed out above (and which I knew all along, but merely forgot to mention ), the NCAA has an exception to the BI rule so that it is not BI if the ball has entered the basket from below.

However, the FED rules do not include this exception, so in your high school games, call it by the definition.

Chuck

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

And the NCAA agrees with you. As JR pointed out above (and which I knew all along, but merely forgot to mention ), the NCAA has an exception to the BI rule so that it is not BI if the ball has entered the basket from below.

However, the FED rules do not include this exception, so in your high school games, call it by the definition.

Chuck,I can't agree with that either, unfortunately.I think that is bad advice for a high school game,in the unlikely case that it will ever happen. Both the NFHS and NCAA rule books publish appendixes at the back of their respective books,outlining the differences between their rulesets.Neither ruleset states that there is a difference in this particular instance. Why? JMO,but I think that it's because the NFHS never contemplated anyone actually calling BI and awarding points on a ball going up into the basket,instead of down into the basket as normally occurs. I think that both sets of rules legislators intended for it to be called the same way as the NCAA stipulates.It's just not logical to have it otherwise.

[ChuckElias]

It's also not logical for the NF rules to state that player control continues during a try when the shooter is airborne, and also that team control ends.

Logic is not the primary concern for me in this case. The primary concern, for me anyway, is that the definition is completely unambiguous. Live ball, touched while in the cylinder is a violation. You simply can't get away from the fact that the conditions of the violation have been met.

If you call it by the book, you can defend it. If you don't call it by the book and somebody calls you on it, you're screwed. "Yeah, I know that's what it says, but. . ."

To me, the most interesting thing about this discussion is that neither of us can really bring ourselves to see it from the other angle. I can absolutely see your point, but I think it's completely wrong. And I think you've been saying the same about my point. While we often have this kind of disagreement over matters of judgment, it's not as frequent with definition-type questions. Kind of funny.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Logic is not the primary concern for me in this case. The primary concern, for me anyway, is that the definition is completely unambiguous. Live ball, touched while in the cylinder is a violation. You simply can't get away from the fact that the conditions of the violation have been met.

Uh,Chuck,where did the above come from? We haven't been arguing about touching a live ball in the cylinder.Of course that's a normal,everyday BI call.The definition of the cylinder in the rulebook says that it has the basket ring as it's LOWER base(R4-6-2).We're talking about an oddball case where the basket ring is the UPPER limit-i.e.the ball is in the net below the ring when it,the net,or the ring is touched.At no time was the ball ever above the ring.Completely different scenario!

Weren't you trying to justify your position by using the language of R4-6-1(touch the ball or basket while the ball is within the basket)?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 1st, 2003 at 08:31 PM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Uh,Chuck,where did the above come from? We haven't been arguing about touching a live ball in the cylinder.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. In the basket. I was still in my previous post to BITS, where I actually was talking about the cylinder. Just change "cylinder" to "basket" in the above passage. But you already knew that. . . Where's that smiley flippin' the bird?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

And the NCAA agrees with you. As JR pointed out above (and which I knew all along, but merely forgot to mention ), the NCAA has an exception to the BI rule so that it is not BI if the ball has entered the basket from below.

However, the FED rules do not include this exception, so in your high school games, call it by the definition.

Chuck

Hmmm, I had a 1000 word essay all outlined about why I felt your assertion violated the spirit of this rule. Then I consulted the 2002-2004 NFHS handbook (that funky green book that the nice lady from NFHS talked me into buying) looking for ammo to support my position, and the wheels came flying off!

Quoting from page 41: Basket interference may occur during a field goal or free-throw attempt, or when a tapped ball is in flight from a player toward his/her basket, or whenever the ball is in, on, or directly above the basket, regardless of how it got there....

I've learned my new thing for the day, now I can go to bed

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
[/B]

Quoting from page 41: Basket interference may occur during a field goal or free-throw attempt, or when a tapped ball is in flight from a player toward his/her basket, or whenever the ball is in, on, or directly above the basket, regardless of how it got there....

I've learned my new thing for the day, now I can go to bed [/B][/QUOTE]New thing,BITS? Hardly new. I agreed with that particular language point about 3 days ago. That's what the rule(NFHS R4-6-1) that I just finished quoting above, to try and help Chuck out in HIS argument, says. The key word in this whole argument from that language is one word- "in"-as in "in the basket",and the argument that we're having is whether "in" should include balls going "up" as well as the normal calls with the balls coming down to the basket. I'm saying that the NFHS rulesmakers never contemplated putting in a rule that would allow us to award points on a play like this where it would otherwise always be impossible for those points to be scored. As I stated before,the NCAA recognizes that fact in their rules,and nowhere is it recognized in the published rules differences that the NFHS differs.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 2nd, 2003 at 01:38 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
[/B]

Where's that smiley flippin' the bird?

[/B][/QUOTE]As you well know,I always try to act with the utmost dignity,even in these heated debates.