Ball goes through bottom of hoop

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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] [/B][/QUOTE]Previously I would have agreed with you entirely.

However, the comment in the handbook states that it's basket interference regardless of how the ball came to be in the basket (i.e., doesn't matter if it got in the basket from the top or the bottom). It may not be what the rulesmakers envisioned, but it's what they published to the world.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

However, the comment in the handbook states that it's basket interference regardless of how the ball came to be in the basket (i.e., doesn't matter if it got in the basket from the top or the bottom). It may not be what the rulesmakers envisioned, but it's what they published to the world.

That has been my point all along. When we get into these debates on the rules I always argue based on what is written in the NFHS rules book, not what was meant, or was implied, or was left out, or is in the NCAA manual, etc.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Sorry, JR, but we have already quoted you 9.11.2 Sit C to disprove this statement.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Coming from below,you can never meet that definition--because if it does clear the ring from below,it's an immediate violation.

It is the part of this statement in italics, which I believe is wrong, that started this entire thread. You cannot support this view with the rules book. The ball must clear THE BASKET, which means the net too!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Where's that smiley flippin' the bird?

[/B]

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

[/B][/QUOTE]

JR, just let'em call it, if they want to. While they may not listen to you, I bet they listen when they get the phone call the next morning. Assignors don't like it when officials call something so literally from the rule book, especially when the intent of the rule is not what's called.

I'm willing to bet that the NFHS has not thought of this scenario. And if they did, the certainly wouldn't want BI called.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

That has been my point all along. When we get into these debates on the rules I always argue based on what is written in the NFHS rules book, not what was meant, or was implied, or was left out, or is in the NCAA manual, etc.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Sorry, JR, but we have already quoted you 9.11.2 Sit C to disprove this statement.

[/B][/QUOTE]Nevada,would you care to enlighten me,as per your first statement above,exactly how you can make such a statement and then go and selectively call,or ignore,something like travelling? Please point out the section of the rule book that says you can only call travelling if a defender is within a certain distance.What is that distance supposed to be anyway? 5 feet? 15 feet? 30 feet?

As for your other statement above,maybe you can also explain to me how a casebook play related to a ball touched in the cylinder above the basket has got anything at all in common with a ball being touched that has never been in the cylinder and has always been below the ring. Apples and oranges again,Nevada.The "cylinder" and the "basket" are completely different concepts in the rule book.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
[/B]

I'm willing to bet that the NFHS has not thought of this scenario. And if they did, the certainly wouldn't want BI called.
[/B][/QUOTE]My thoughts exactly,Tony. I think that the FED would just follow the common-sense NCAA lead. Of course,I've never seen this play in 44 years of reffing either,and I really don't expect to ever see it.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I'm willing to bet that the NFHS has not thought of this scenario. And if they did, the certainly wouldn't want BI called.
[/B]

My thoughts exactly,Tony. I think that the FED would just follow the common-sense NCAA lead. Of course,I've never seen this play in 44 years of reffing either,and I really don't expect to ever see it. [/B][/QUOTE]


As you now jinx us all . . . . .

Something makes me think that, on the first night of basketball, all around the country we'll have this play.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I'm willing to bet that the NFHS has not thought of this scenario. And if they did, the certainly wouldn't want BI called.
[/B]

My thoughts exactly,Tony. I think that the FED would just follow the common-sense NCAA lead. [/B][/QUOTE]
Tony, that may be true, but don't you think that the play should be called according to what is explicitly written in the rulebook and official's manual until we're told to do otherwise? I just don't see how you can disregard the explicit instructions concerning this call. Aren't we always saying that you can't apply college or NBA mechanics, rules or philosophies to our high school games? What makes this particular play different?

JR, I am with you wholeheartedly. Add the NCAA exception to the FED rulebook. But until then, I think I'm required to call the play according to the rules and instructions ("regardless of how it got there") that I'm given.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
[/B]

JR, I am with you wholeheartedly. Add the NCAA exception to the FED rulebook. But until then, I think I'm required to call the play according to the rules and instructions ("regardless of how it got there") that I'm given. [/B][/QUOTE]Yabut,I don't think that you're gonna look for this play until you find it(or think that you found it).I don't have that faith in other officials.

I'm sure that you know what I mean.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Tony, that may be true, but don't you think that the play should be called according to what is explicitly written in the rulebook and official's manual until we're told to do otherwise? I just don't see how you can disregard the explicit instructions concerning this call.

There are no explicit instructions concerning this call. It's never been addressed by the NF. However, the first page of the rule book does say, "Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation." I do not believe the NF wants us calling BI on a ball that entered the basket from below. That is not the intent of the BI rule.

The intent is to penalize a team who interferes with a ball when there's a possiblity there could be a basket. The intent of the throw-in rule is to prevent a defender from interviewing with an alley oop pass while it's in the cylinder and to prevent the offensive player from grabbing that same pass while it's within the cylinder and scoring. That's the sole purpose, because the possilbity exist that a basket could be scored. There's no way a basket can be scored in the situation described here. So, to call BI in this situation does not meet the intent of the rule.

Now, ask your assignor how he wants this situation interpreted in games he books. I bet he sides with JR, too.

[bigwhistle]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]

The intent of the throw-in rule is to prevent a defender from interviewing with an alley oop pass while it's in the cylinder and to prevent the offensive player from grabbing that same pass while it's within the cylinder and scoring.

Dickie V: Mr. Defender, Baby!! That was a tremendous play you made!

Defender: Excuse me Mr. Vitale, I've got to grab that alley oop pass real quick......

Dickie V: There you have it folks!!! We have just seen that diaper dandy defender interviewing his alley oop pass!! Awesome!!!!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
The intent is to penalize a team who interferes with a ball when there's a possiblity there could be a basket.

Tony, I'm not trying to be a smart-@$$, honest. But how do you know that's the intent? A couple people earlier in the thread tried to say that the intent was to prevent interference with a try. Now you say it's to prevent interference anytime a basket might be scored. Maybe the intent is simply to make the cylinder and basket sacrosanct. (This is the case in women's lacrosse, for example.) Nobody at any time may violate the cylinder or the basket when the ball is there (except when carrying the ball into the cylinder for a dunk).

I just think that with the instructions and rules as decisive and clear as they are, they need to be followed, rather than call it differently from the rulebook b/c we think we know the intent. Just my opinion. Again, it's funny that we can't come to an agreement on this.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

But how do you know that's the intent? A couple people earlier in the thread tried to say that the intent was to prevent interference with a try. Now you say it's to prevent interference anytime a basket might be scored. Maybe the intent is simply to make the cylinder and basket sacrosanct.

How about the intent is to penalize a team that interferes with the ball when there's a possibility that there could be a GOAL,Chuck?

R5-1-1--"A goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from ABOVE and remains in or passes through".

Impossible to score a goal from below,isn't it?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Tony, I'm not trying to be a smart-@$$, honest. But how do you know that's the intent?

Because I live and breathe, my friend.

If we look at it from that angle, how can we ever determine intent? The NF expects us to be knowledgable of the rules and apply the penalty that fits the foul or violation. In this case, calling BI is not the correct penalty.

A couple people earlier in the thread tried to say that the intent was to prevent interference with a try.

Well, we know that's wrong because of the throw-in situation. However, while the throw-in is not a try, it is a situation where a basket could be scored. A basket can never be scored by passing the ball through the underside of the rim.

Just my opinion. Again, it's funny that we can't come to an agreement on this.

Well, it's my opinion that you're being overly legalistic on this interpretation. As I stated, there isn't a case play on this situation and I've never even read or heard it considered before. I don't beleive the NF has ever even consdiered the possibility of this being called BI.So, I guess we'll just differ on this one.

Maybe MTD can send it to Mary Struckoff.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Maybe MTD can send it to Mary Struckoff.

Oh good, then she can tell us that it is BI only if the kid didn't have his foot on the line!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

That has been my point all along. When we get into these debates on the rules I always argue based on what is written in the NFHS rules book, not what was meant, or was implied, or was left out, or is in the NCAA manual, etc.

[/B]

Nevada,would you care to enlighten me,as per your first statement above,exactly how you can make such a statement and then go and selectively call,or ignore,something like travelling?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Sure. In the statement above I wrote "these debates on the rules" because we are talking about what exactly the rules book says and how a question on a written NFHS exam would need to be answered. In the travelling play, we have moved onto the court and are discussing what to call and what not to call. Play selectivity as Chuck put it. I never said that the kid didn't travel or that what he did wasn't technically a violation; all I am saying is that I don't believe that he gained any advantage and so this is one of those plays that I am going to pass on.
So to me they are two different things entirely, or in your words, apples to oranges!