I had a situation in a recent game where the ball was thrown up through the bottom of the basket. I immediately whistled it dead and used the arrow to determine who got the ball. Is this the correct way to deal with this situation.

No. The player that knocked it through the underside of the hoop committed a violation. The opponent should get the ball.

thanks for clearing that up

Just for clarification, the ball must pass all the way through the basket from below for this to be a violation. Just entering the basket and rising above the rim, but not clearing the net is not enough, since the net is part of the basket.
Way too many officials call this a violation when it is improper.

In this case where the ball goes above rim, but doesn't clear net, do we just continue to play or is it dead with AP?

Not a violation unless the ball goes all the way up,just like Nevada said.The bottom of the ball must clear the top of the ring. If not,play on.

BTW,if the ball does go all the way through on the way up,and you don't know who touched it last,or if it was touched last by 2 opponents simultaneously,then you still call the violation-but it now will be an AP.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref ... Just entering the basket and rising above the rim, but not clearing the net is not enough, since the net is part of the basket.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee ... just like Nevada said.The bottom of the ball must clear the top of the ring. If not,play on.

Sorry to nit-pick, but assuming the net is pulled upward as the ball goes through, is the violation called after the ball clears the top of the ring, or the net, assuming net goes up higher???

I think that is physically impossible.If the net gets flipped up,it will stop the ball from going higher.Use the top of the ring and the bottom of the ball.

Let's hope no one from the NFHS reads this board, or else this situation could end up on the test!

But now we're ready for it.

PGCougar,
What JR wrote above is exactly why I posted my clarification. I do NOT agree with him. I say the ball has to clear the net too, otherwise the call is improper. The important rules are:
9-4 A player shall not travel with the ball, intentionally kick it, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below.
1-10-1 ...Each basket shall consist of a single metal ring, 18 inches in inside diameter, its flange and braces, and a white-cord 12-mesh net, 15 to 18 inches in length, suspended from beneath the ring.
I may be the one who is nit-picking here, but according to the wording of those rules the ball must pass through the entire basket, which includes the net, before it is a violation.
Since we all agree that the net is part of the basket, and rule 9-4 says it is only a violation if the player causes the ball to "pass through the basket", not the just the ring, from below, the ball must clear the net as well as the ring before the official should call a violation.

Use the top of the ring and the bottom of the ball.

[/B][/QUOTE]
9-4 A player shall not travel with the ball, intentionally kick it, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below.
1-10-1 ...Each basket shall consist of a single metal ring, 18 inches in inside diameter, its flange and braces, and a white-cord 12-mesh net, 15 to 18 inches in length, suspended from beneath the ring.

[/B][/QUOTE]Nevada,sometimes you try to think way too much about these rules.The language used above says "suspended from beneath the ring". If there was a different call for special circumstances like the net hanging UP,believe me,a casebook play would have been added. There has been no casebook play added on this one for a net defying the laws of gravity. Personally,I can't think of any circumstance where you could have the net sticking above the basket and the ball now going completely up through.Feel free to call it your way,though,if you ever see it.

JR,
I am not talking about any laws of physics defying situation. I am only considering the case in which the ball is rising from below and hits the nets, pushing it up through the level of the ring. So now we have both the ball and the net above the level of the ring. (Since the diameter of the ball is only about 10 inches and the net is 15-18 inches in length, this situation is not only possible, but I have seen it.) However, from this point, the ball does not continue upward and pass through the net exiting on the other side, but instead falls back down through the ring, with the net still on top of it, and comes clear of the basket on the underside.
I think this is the play PGCougar is asking about. I think that it is a very logical and sane question, so I have tried to answer it based on what the rules say. I do acknowledge that most officials do not call it the way it is written, but the way that you have stated. I simply feel this is improper. It would be interesting to see what the answer was (violation or no violation) if this senario ever appeared on a NFHS rules exam.

It is also interesting to note that the language for a goal clearly specifies that the ball does not have to pass all the way through the basket (read net) for a goal to be scored, but may remain in the basket. See 5-1-1.
I feel that if the rules committee wanted the violation to be called for the ball just entering, or entering and remaining in the basket from below, they would have said so, but instead they have clearly written, "enter and pass through the basket."

Last thought, would you call a violation or a jump ball if the ball entered from below and somehow remained in the basket without passing through?

I'd have to go with a jump ball.
Just my take on it.

Nevada,if the ball didn't pass through,then I agree that it can't be a violation. Jump ball- AP- would be the appropriate call then,I think.

Just hold your whistle for a second. Whichever good samaritan jumps up to knock it loose is guilty of BI. Why bother with the arrow? :)

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

Upon further review....

Chuck,this is what we are talking about. You are saying that if you touch a live ball within the basket while it's on the way up,but before it went through,you and Nevada would call BI. I'm telling you that if you're gonna call the language literally,the same definition for BI also includes touching a ball that is touching the basket. The net and ring are part of the basket also,by definition. Therefore,using your application of the rule,it also HAS to be BI if a player touches the ball while the ball is touching the net or rim,even if the ball is on the way up or being passed underneath the ring.Do you still agree with that?

As I've previously admitted, I neglected to bring my rulebooks to Florida with me, so I can't look at the actual wording. But doesn't the rule say "within" the basket or "on" the ring?

If the rule says "touching the basket", then your scenario would be technically BI, and I admit that I would have a very hard time calling it if the ball were merely touching the outside edge of the ring.

Just call it when it goes through the ring from the bottom. Don't look for boogers, there is one on each side of the table that will find you on their own without your help.

Rule 4-5-1--"Basket interference occurs when a player touches the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket". Note that it says "on the basket",not "on top of the basket".Note that it also says "within the basket",but it doesn't say whether it got "within" from the top or the bottom. Also,note the definition of "basket"- R1-10-1--"Each basket shall consist of a single metal ring...and a white cord 12-mesh net suspended from beneath the ring".

T'aint my scenario.It's your's and Nevada's. The language fits. Now,are you gonna call BI if the ball is going up,is within the mesh going up,and hasn't gone through the ring yet,and someone now touches it?.Are you also gonna call BI if someone touches the ball while it is on the way up and the ball happens to be touching,or "on" the mesh or the ring. By strict definition of the rule,you should.I won't! That's not the purpose or intent of the BI rule.

Doesn't "on" mean "on top"? :confused: If it's touching the side of the rim, it's not on the basket, is it?

Yes.

No, b/c touching the net is not the same as being on the basket. Just my opinion.

Chuck

1)Doesn't "on" mean "on top"? :confused: If it's touching the side of the rim, it's not on the basket, is it?

2)Yes.

3)No, b/c touching the net is not the same as being on the basket. Just my opinion.

[/B][/QUOTE]1)Nope,"on" means "on". It means "against". If it's ON the side of the rim,it's ON the rim. If it's ON the bottom of the rim,it's ON the rim. I'm using the literal translation. As in "on the mesh" also! See #3 too.The rule says "on the basket".By definition,the mesh is part of the basket.How can you NOT call BI now in #3,using your own logic and the strict meaning of the words?

2)I wanna be there when you call BI in #2.Maybe in a case where the top of the ball is still below the ring,but the ball is entirely in the mesh going up when it is touched.Hopefully,it'll be a D1 game and Texas Tech is playing-and you call the BI on Texas Tech.:D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 30th, 2003 at 03:33 PM]

Wrong.

There's a specific case (I hope -- or else I'm remembering incorrectly) where the ball is against the side of the basket ring and is touched -- ruling: not BI.

Casebook play 9-11SitB. :D

Casebook 9-11 and 9-12 COMMENT also says "Other acts in 9-11,called "basket interference" apply during either a free throw,a try or tap for field goal,or whenever the ball is on,in or above the basket".What Chuck and Nevada are talking about certainly can't be called a free throw,a try or tap for field goal,or the ball being on or above the basket.None of that is applicable.That leaves a literal interpretation of "in the basket"-with the mesh hanging down being defined in the rulebook as being part of the basket.What they are trying to say is that you CAN call BI on a ball going up IF it is touched while it is IN the basket-meaning the mesh part of the basket-but before the ball goes completely above the rim so that a violation occurs. I disagree.

I'm thinking . . . . . no!



A ball entering from below and getting swatted around counts as "entering and passing through" for my purposes - call it dead; don't even bother thinking about the BI.

1)Nope,"on" means "on". It means "against". If it's ON the side of the rim,it's ON the rim. If it's ON the bottom of the rim,it's ON the rim. I'm using the literal translation. As in "on the mesh" also! See #3 too.The rule says "on the basket".By definition,the mesh is part of the basket.How can you NOT call BI now in #3,using your own logic and the strict meaning of the words?

2)I wanna be there when you call BI in #2.Maybe in a case where the top of the ball is still below the ring,but the ball is entirely in the mesh going up when it is touched.Hopefully,it'll be a D1 game and Texas Tech is playing-and you call the BI on Texas Tech.:D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 30th, 2003 at 03:33 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, JR, by rule they are all BI. Will I call all of them? Doubt it. On this forum we sometimes debate what the rules are, sometimes how they are written, and sometimes how they should be called. I think in this thread we have mixed all three.
I will ignore the one where the pass below the rim hits the net and a player hits the ball at the same time. My story will be that he hit the ball after it stopped touching the net and I'm sticking with it.

["1)Nope,"on" means "on". It means "against". If it's ON the side of the rim,it's ON the rim. If it's ON the bottom of the rim,it's ON the rim. I'm using the literal translation. "]

case book pg 69 9.11 situation B. The ball is touching the side of A's basket when B1 contacts the net with his hand. The ball is definitely not touching the top of the ring...the ruling says this is not a violation....so no the side is not "on the ring.

If you check above,I think that you will find that I cited the casebook play above,oh,about 23 hours ago- yesterday afternoon.I was always aware of it.

JR, I honestly think that you're not using "on" correctly. "On" does not mean "touching". If B1 is leaning against A1 in the low post, no one in his right mind would say that B1 is literally on A1. "On" means "on top of". I'm pretty sure I'm standing by my original answers.

To clarify,a loose ball is knocked straight up in the air under the basket,.It completely enters the mesh,but doesn't go above the ring.While the ball is inside the mesh,a player touches either the mesh,ball or ring.You would call BI in all 3 cases.

Correct?

JR, I'll stand up and say that yes, I will call BI on all three of those.
Now, by what is written in the rules book I think that the ball on the side of the rim is also BI if it or the basket is touched. However, the case book has corrected this, and therefore, I will go with the case book clarification in that case. It seems that we really need a case book clarification for this play that you have posted.

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! :D

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]

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?

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:

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.

In Chuck's defense(and Lord knows I don't do THAT often :D),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]

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.

And the NCAA agrees with you. As JR pointed out above (and which I knew all along, but merely forgot to mention :rolleyes: ), 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

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.

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.

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]

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? :p

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 ;)

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.:D 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]

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.

http://www.uselessgraphics.com/cart96.gif

New thing,BITS? Hardly new. I agreed with that particular language point about 3 days ago.:D 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.

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.

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

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!

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

http://www.uselessgraphics.com/cart96.gif [/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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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. :D [/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.

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]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!!!! :D

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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. :)

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

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!