basket-interference?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sounded like he also violated Article 4 too.

Right. For some reason - my guess is fatigue - I didn't read the rim part of the OP correctly.

[ngtotd]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Right. For some reason - my guess is fatigue - I didn't read the rim part of the OP correctly.

Well, it happened so fast, but it really appeared that it wasn't the snap-back and contact of the pulled-down rim that popped the ball back out (still in the cylinder), but the net itself, more taut at the rim, flipped the ball back out, before it fell in. It could've been the rim too, but that wasn't specifically seen.

That probably doesn't make a difference, but Art. 4 mentions only the rim specificially contacting the ball, not the net itself.

BI was called, but there were those whose voiced a differenet opinion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ngtotd

Well, it happened so fast, but it really appeared that it wasn't the snap-back and contact of the pulled-down rim that popped the ball back out (still in the cylinder), but the net itself, more taut at the rim, flipped the ball back out, before it fell in. It could've been the rim too, but that wasn't specifically seen.

That probably doesn't make a difference, but Art. 4 mentions only the rim specificially contacting the ball, not the net itself.

BI was called, but there were those whose voiced a differenet opinion.

BI should have been called, for grabbing the rim while the ball was in the basket. Good call.