Kansas State v. Texas: Basket Interference (Video)

[APG]

Yes, they did count the basket. Pretty surprised they did.

[grunewar]

and there's a lot of great videos after this one......thanks for posting.

[APG]

Originally Posted by grunewar

and there's a lot of great videos after this one......thanks for posting.

Unintentional on my part...put an embed code that included a playlist with all 270 or so clips on the channel.

[JRutledge]

Philosophically I know this is a violation, but should it be one in reality?

A fouled player loses the ball in an dunk attempt and the ball goes in the hole anyway without his complete control. Should we penalize the shooter for something the defense created?

I am seriously conflicted with the situation so I do not have a definitive answer. I would like to hear other opinions.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Philosophically I know this is a violation, but should it be one in reality?

A fouled player loses the ball in an dunk attempt and the ball goes in the hole anyway without his complete control. Should we penalize the shooter for something the defense created?

I am seriously conflicted with the situation so I do not have a definitive answer. I would like to hear other opinions.

Peace

I didn't include this in the clip, but according to the broadcast, the officials told them that they counted the basket precisely because the ball went in the basket w/o touching the basket or the player.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Philosophically I know this is a violation, but should it be one in reality?

A fouled player loses the ball in an dunk attempt and the ball goes in the hole anyway without his complete control. Should we penalize the shooter for something the defense created?

I am seriously conflicted with the situation so I do not have a definitive answer. I would like to hear other opinions.

Peace

My thoughts too. I'm OK, philosophically, with counting this one since the ball didn't hit the rim and wasn't touched by the player....no effect at all...particularly since he was found and probably only grabbed the rime as a result.

[Zoochy]

The dude is hanging on the rim!
Basket interference occurs when a player:
ART. 1 . . . Touches the ball or any part of the basket (including the net) while the ball is on or within either basket.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My thoughts too. I'm OK, philosophically, with counting this one since the ball didn't hit the rim and wasn't touched by the player....no effect at all...particularly since he was found and probably only grabbed the rime as a result.

That's only ok if he lets go of the ring before the ball enters. So it would be fine had he pulled down the movable ring AND RELEASED IT, then the ball enters, and even though the ring has yet to return to its normal position, if it does not contact the ring on the way through there is no violation.

The posted play is different because the man is still grasping the ring when the ball enters the basket. That is not permitted BY RULE. We can't disregard the rules we don't like or don't agree with.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's only ok if he lets go of the ring before the ball enters. So it would be fine had he pulled down the movable ring AND RELEASED IT, then the ball enters, and even though the ring has yet to return to its normal position, if it does not contact the ring on the way through there is no violation.

The posted play is different because the man is still grasping the ring when the ball enters the basket. That is not permitted BY RULE. We can't disregard the rules we don't like or don't agree with.

Note that I said philosophically. I was not saying it was correct by rule.

[Toren]

Interesting play.

I always try to watch it once and make up my mind. When I saw it, I thought the offensive player let go of the rim and the ball did not contact the rim.

So I also would have gotten this wrong. In slow motion and from various angles the offensive player is clearly still holding onto the rim.

I can see how they missed this, I'm pretty sure this is not reviewable.

[rsl]

EXCEPTION: In Arts. 1 or 2, if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference.

This sure seems to meet the exception in FED rules. I don't know college.

[APG]

Originally Posted by rsl

EXCEPTION: In Arts. 1 or 2, if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference.

This sure seems to meet the exception in FED rules. I don't know college.

How was his hand legally in contact with the ball when he lost contact with the ball prior to it entering the basket?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rsl

EXCEPTION: In Arts. 1 or 2, if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference.

This sure seems to meet the exception in FED rules. I don't know college.

The college rule is (at least essentially) the same. And, you can parse the sentence and the ruling in 9.11.2B so it applies. I'm not sure that's what they meant, though.