USC-UCLA Basket Interference? (Video)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is the ball in the air (in the cylinder above the rim) when the net is touched? If so, nothing.

Unless the basket was pulled down such that it had not returned to its normal position by the time the ball did contact the rim. That is what I have.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless the basket was pulled down such that it had not returned to its normal position by the time the ball did contact the rim. That is what I have.

Well, there is the whole "moving a moveable ring" aspect of BI, but I don't think that's in play here. Technically, merely touching the net while the ball is on or in the basket is BI.

In practicality, I'm fine with the no call for three reasons:

1. The ball is not affected (which I think is what Camron was implying).
2. Unless the ball is rolling around on the rim (which it was not in this case), deciding whether the net was being touched at the precise moment the ball was on the rim is an educated guess at best.
3. It's tough to trace the arm you see touching the net down to the jersey color amidst the chaos of rebounding. You could conceivably put air in the whistle and then say to yourself, "crap, who was that?" And then you're guessing when awarded points are potentially involved, and that's not good.

In summary, good no call IMO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

It's tough to trace the arm you see touching the net down to the jersey color amidst the chaos of rebounding. You could conceivably put air in the whistle and then say to yourself, "crap, who was that?" And then you're guessing ...

You don't have to guess. Just call double basket interference. And be sure to sell the hell out of the call, get out of Dodge, and get the ball back in play, as soon as possible.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You don't have to guess. Just call double basket interference. And be sure to sell the hell out of the call, get out of Dodge, and get the ball back in play, as soon as possible.

Ha! Actually I thought of that.....but then we have to go to the arrow, and someone will want clarification on why we went to the arrow, and the next time there's a jump ball they'll say, "see, that would have been our arrow," yada yada yada.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... double basket interference.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

... then we have to go to the arrow,

Are you sure this is the correct penalty for double basket interference? See 9-14-PENALTY.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I don't see BI in the video. And now for something completely different: I thought the shooter might have been fouled at the beginning of the video.

MTD, Sr.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you sure this is the correct penalty for double basket interference? See 9-14-PENALTY.

There is no section 14 to Rule 9 in NFHS.

See NFHS 6-4-3e and NCAAM 9-18-5.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

See NFHS 6-4-3e

I was only kidding about "double" basket interference. I didn't realize that there was a real simultaneous basket interference rule.

I hope that this doesn't cost me my Esteemed Forum Member status. It took me ten years, and 13,000 posts, to achieve this status. I don't want to lose it because of one stupid joke that backfired on me.

NFHS 6-4-3-E: Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out-of bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating possession throw-in shall result when: Opponents commit simultaneous goaltending or basket-interference violations.

If the ball went in the basket, should the basket count, or not? If the ball didn't go in the basket, should the basket be awarded, or not?

Once we get those questions answered, we can move on to a multiple basket interference situation. Award, or wave off, double the points? Right?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Well, there is the whole "moving a moveable ring" aspect of BI, but I don't think that's in play here.

That is exactly what happened. It wan't for long, but the basket was pulled down and it popped up to hit the ball...and #44 blue is the one who did it.

There are a few clues to telling that it was pulled down instead of just being touched....
1. The whole backboard support system dipped.
2. The net recoiled straight up into the cylinder which means it was pulled, not merely touched.

Basket should have counted.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It wasn't for long, but the basket was pulled down and it popped up to hit the ball, and #44 blue is the one who did it.

It took me three slow motion replays to see it, but you're absolutely correct.

Good luck seeing this in a real game, in real time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It took me three slow motion replays to see it, but you're absolutely correct.

Good luck seeing this in a real game, in real time.

Sometimes, we can't see the specific act at full speed but we can see clues that reveal the act. Primarily, the sound that someone else mentioned (I was watching the video with no sound), and the reaction of the net, it responded like a rubber band being shot. That tells you it was grabbed, pulled down, and released. Then, seeing the ball pop up unnaturally completes the puzzle.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sometimes, we can't see the specific act at full speed but we can see clues that reveal the act. Primarily, the sound that someone else mentioned (I was watching the video with no sound), and the reaction of the net, it responded like a rubber band being shot. That tells you it was grabbed, pulled down, and released. Then, seeing the ball pop up unnaturally completes the puzzle.

You know, I stand by the points I made earlier, but after watching the video a lot more and listening to the sound, I agree it's definitely BI. The ball was affected. Even with the video I'm still not 100% sure whose arm got the net, but I think it was probably white. So UCLA should have been awarded two points there.

Golly gee that's a tough call in real time. As if your everyday vanilla BI is any easier. Sheesh.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Well, there is the whole "moving a moveable ring" aspect of BI, but I don't think that's in play here. Technically, merely touching the net while the ball is on or in the basket is BI.

In practicality, I'm fine with the no call for three reasons:

1. The ball is not affected (which I think is what Camron was implying).
2. Unless the ball is rolling around on the rim (which it was not in this case), deciding whether the net was being touched at the precise moment the ball was on the rim is an educated guess at best.
3. It's tough to trace the arm you see touching the net down to the jersey color amidst the chaos of rebounding. You could conceivably put air in the whistle and then say to yourself, "crap, who was that?" And then you're guessing when awarded points are potentially involved, and that's not good.

In summary, good no call IMO.

I think the ball is very clearly affected. If you just watch the ball itself, when it hits the backboard and then rim, it bounces unnaturally high. I don't know what else could possible cause this except that the rim had been moved, which does affect the ball.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is exactly what happened. It wan't for long, but the basket was pulled down and it popped up to hit the ball...and #44 blue is the one who did it.

There are a few clues to telling that it was pulled down instead of just being touched....
1. The whole backboard support system dipped.
2. The net recoiled straight up into the cylinder which means it was pulled, not merely touched.

Basket should have counted.

In addition to those you listed, if you watch the video with sound, you can clearly hear the sound of the rim popping back to its initial position.