Dunk and Hang on Rim (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PlrpeAAv85s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Would the hang be enough for you to give a T?

Not a chance IMO. He has significant momentum going forward and lets go once that has expended.

No.

i wouldn't call a T.

+1

It's 50/50 in my opinion. If a partner whacked him, I would support him.

In a heart beat.

MTD, Sr.

Great play! (no T, but it was close, he seemed to pull himself up a bit)

Agree. He didn't just hang on for momentum but did a bit of a pull-up to go along with it. I've let such actions go and I've called such actions.

I agree. Can see arguments for both sides.

I agree, it's close. IMO, not enough for a T. If he does a full chin-up, sure, but during his mini-chin-up, he does look down into his landing area. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Letter of the rule ..... Yes

Spirit of rule ........ No

I wouldn't call it, but agree with Nevada if partner did, I could see rationale

If no defender in vicinity, call might be better supported.

The mini chin up at the end might be enough for the T but could support either way.

Nope.

Peace

I'd vote "no" on a T here

If I were still officiating at the collegiate level, I probably (99%) not call this a TF. BUT!! At the H.S. level this is a video casebook play of a TF for hanging on the rim.

MTD, Sr.

The Picture Of Dorian Gray (Oscar Wilde, 1891) ...
 

You're just envious because you can't jump high enough to touch the rim any more. How come the players stay the same age, and we keep getting older? It just doesn't seem fair.

Not only that, they keep getting faster and quicker.

MTD, Sr.

Nyet

Another North Korean Hack ???
 

Freddy: Please go to your Official Forum Member Profile page, and under "Language", please uncheck "Russian", and check "English".

This is closer to a video casebook of when NOT to have a TF in this situation.

I had a similar play the other week where a kid dunks the ball with the same momentum as in the video. He was unable, or unwilling to continue hanging on the rim and ended up falling parallel to the floor. Fortunately, he was not seriously hurt but he easily could have been.

As officials we should err on the side of allowing the player to protect themselves. If he continues hanging on the rim once he gets back into a safer landing position then ring him up. In this video he lets go.

I don't think it's even close to a T in real time. In super slow mo, sure it looks like it could have been something but these plays aren't played or officiated in super slow mo.

Agree. I think you have to consider how the ball was dunked, and more specifically, what the player's speed was when the dunk happened. A dunk from right under the hoop better let go quick, or it's getting a T from me, but if they have a running start like in the video, letting go too early can be pretty unsafe

I know that I am one of the "bald old geezers" (I probably the only bald one) on this Forum and I am only 5'-09". But I do have some perspective on H.S. players that can dunk. I was one of two 5'-09" point guards on a eight man H.S. varsity basketball team (the other six players were between 6'-04" and 6'-09", and each and everyone of them could dunk with the best of them and this was in the late 1960's.

I am also believe that even players with great athletic ability must play within their ability. Case in point: B1 has a LGP against A1 while standing directly underneath Team A's Basket; A1 goes airborne and charges into B1 after releasing the ball for a FGA and before he returns to the Court. We know that players and coaches (and too many officials for that matter) at both the H.S. and college levels have a mistaken belief that in this situation A1 has the right to return to the Court without blocking his way, and we know that the reason that rule is written such that A1 is guilty of charging is that A1 cannot just drive to the basket willy nilly (I love that technical term) and expect that all of the defenders should get out of his way. In other words, A1 must control his body in a matter that allows him to play within the rules.

W5 in the video had not defenders in front of him and made a poor decision as to what type of FGA to attempt. While the NFHS and NCAA Rules are the same for this type of play, we must be more cognizant of how this rule needs to be applied at the H.S. level. While I am not a mind reader I have no doubt that this was not the first time that W5 had ever dunked a basketball and could have easily dunked the ball without hanging on the rim and especially doing a pull up on the rim.

I know that the fans want to see the players dunk the ball and I as an official enjoy seeing a player, legally, dunk the ball in my games, BUT, our first responsibility is the safety of the players, W5 knew how to dunk the ball and had no on under him, and yet he choose to grab the rim and the execute a pull up. No brainer: TF. Let the fans boo, and the his HC complain, but maybe the next time he won't be so lucky and when he does his chin up the Backboard will shatter and the basket apparatus will collapse as in https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ri-2015-a.html.

MTD, Sr.

MTD, Cool story bro..........:p

But none of that changes that the player is allowed to protect himself after legally dunking the ball.

There is a defender in the play who could have decided to jump when W5 begins to take off. He had a lot of momentum going toward the basket and used the rim to put himself in a safe landing position after legally dunking the ball.

You are essentially saying you want to penalize him because you think he should have slowed himself down before he dunked.

Pepperidge Farm Remembers ...
 

... and that there is absolutely no requirement that there be a defender anywhere near the dunker. That part if the rule was deleted back in the later part of the twentieth century.

Not even a question. Had he let go earlier he would've gotten hurt. Person who calls that a T never dunked a ball in his life. I saw nothing to warrant a T

Not a chance.

Hyperbole is dangerous.

It's not neccessary to grab the rim, or swing from it or do a pull-up, at any speed, while dunking the ball. When the ball is released, the shooter's head is approx. 8'10" off the floor, and his body is close to vertical. He decides to grab the rim, and pulls himself up, while pulling the rim downward, and he raises his body another 12+ inches, while swinging to a near horizontal position. It was all for show, and the show started long before this game, when he and the teammate who fed him the ball off of the backboard, practiced this move.

It's worthy of a T in NFHS, in my judgement. Oh, and yes, I've dunked a ball quite a few times . . .

This is not a technical foul.

I have made this statement before. Folks act as if your body will just magically stop going forward after running full speed just because the balls goes through the basket.

There is a big difference between dunking the ball off 2 feet, and dunking off 1 foot while going at a high speed.

Some refs are just looking for "got ya" violations.

The player doesn't need benefit of using the rim to stop if they don't unnecessarily grab it to start with. The body only goes that horizontal because of the grab. Without it, he'd have stayed upright.

There are far too many high speed and athletic dunks where the player doesn't find the need to swing around like it was a gymnastics meet that prove it is not necessary to do as was done in this dunk.

But, as I said earlier, I see this one at the 50/50 point. I could see it called or not.

No way there's a T here. If the player lets go any earlier, he'd be flat on the floor and likely in a lot of pain. High speed dunk is legal, hanging to prevent injury to self or others is legal. Did he add a little extra sauce with a pull up? Slightly...maybe...but I'd err on the side of safety for the player. Leave this one alone...bound to be bigger fish to fry in the course of the game.

The rim grab is to stop himself from going sideways onto the floor.

Whether the grab is needed or not is not for me to decide there. He's allowed to grab it and he's allowed to hold on to prevent injury.

I think some would call a T here, as well, partially because they're annoyed that the player passed it to a teammate off the board "unnecessarily." Those people need to go outside and yell at random passersby to get off their lawn.

If that's BNR throwing it down, then it's a T. ;) If it's APG, it's a play on. :cool:

PLayer is allowed to dunk. Player is allowed to grab/hang on rim to protect themselves. In order for me to call the T I need to see more than that. As others have said this is clost but I don't definitively have anything on this that I can say is more then the player ensuring he lands safely.


Ya he could have not grabbed the rim at all and twisted or bent to avoid backboard but he didn't. He grabbed the rim which he's allowed to do. He's also allowed to maintain that grab until he can reasonably safely land. I'm giving him the benfit of the doubt on this one.

This is why I'm not quick to call a technical foul for 10-3-3 (or NCAA 10-4.1f, as the case may be): http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/ut...arl-1680216852

Like the announcer said, it's mostly self inflicted for lifting his legs up and trying to do what? I don't know. I wouldn't call a T on the OP either, but I also don't feel bad when someone gets a boo boo from doing something stupid.

Perhaps he was unsure if there was a player beneath him and tried to lift his legs in order to avoid contacting anyone who might be beneath him. It's not our job to pass judgment by "feeling bad" (or not) about an injury, but with respect to whether or not a player's behavior following a dunk constitutes a foul, I will err on the side of not calling a foul if there is any doubt that the player's actions were not done in an effort to avoid injury.

I guess I've done this long enough where this is the exception. Players usually do something to make ESPN's top 10. Especially when it came to dunking.

Agreed...

I don't think he hangs too long but I don't like the pull up.

Nope.

If the defender(s) - in this case, black 11, is close enough to put their hands up and react to even their perceived possibility that the dunker might contact them somehow, I'm not going to even get close to splitting that hair.

Sounds like some people are looking for a violation/foul. If I have to think about a play, then chances are I'm not blowing my whistle. If I see a violation/foul I blow my whistle without thinking about it. Like a knee-jerk reaction.

Let's face it... our judgment/opinion matters in whether we blow the whistle. The majority of the time the play is black or white, but every once in a while a play will enter the gray area. And that gray area can bring different calls. It's too bad, as being consistent is our goal, but until the robots take over officiating that's the way it goes.

Just be sure about your call, and be able to explain why you called/no-called it.

I agree with everyone, lol. Yes, could go either way.

The player CHOSE to dunk the ball going in a forward motion and then hung on the rim for safety. It was his choice. He could have dropped in through the hoop with no rim contact. He chose to put himself in that deleterious position so why should the officials allow him to use the "safety" reason for hanging on the rim? Seems a bit strange to reward someone for making a poor decision.

What "reward"? You consider being able to grab the rim a reward?

Dunks are legal. Being able to make sure you don't get hurt is, and should be, legal. So what's the problem? Do you want to make it illegal for a player to dunk the ball while running?

What poor decision did he make? To dunk the ball hard? Ya he could have dropped it in, or laid it in, or not dunked at all. UNless he's choosing to do something illegal its not a poor choice. Would you not protect the jump shooter because they could have shot a set shot. Or not protect someone shooting a floater because they could have taken a pullup or power layup? Kids taking two wild steps to take an ill advised shot are still entitled to protection under the rules, or does bad footwork now equate no protection?

If kids can make choices about how they shoot the ball and the rules allow/expect them to be able to be protected and land safely . . . just because we don't like hard, showy dunks doesn't mean they get penalized.

Agreed on both.

Luvhoops wrote what some of the other posts were dangerously alluding toward. Its ridiculous to suggest that we should penalize a player for legally protecting himself simply b/c of individual judgement that the dunk was "a poor decision" or "for show" or "unnecessary."

By rule, he legally dunked the ball and is legally allowed to protect himself. Individual opinions on how he chose to legally score the ball are completely irrelevant.

These are actions that are necessary/required based on the defensive position. Yes, set shots were great until the defense began blocking the shots. Thus, the jump shot was required to get the ball beyond/past the defender. The same thing applies to floaters. The defense's action for the offense to do something. This is not the case with dunking the ball, specifically on that play. Yes, dunking is legal but not necessary 99% of the time. In most cases, dunking is a huge waste of physical energy.

In the play, yes, all was legal. The initial guard however should have shot the ball. He made a poor decision by not doing so. The defense did not force him to throw it off the backboard. It was completely choreographed/rehearsed and I can't imagine any real coach agreeing with it. The defense did not force any of this action in fact the offense did. Now, the receiver is decides, on his own, to dunk the ball with two hands and grab the rim with two hands.

What poor decision did he make? The one where he put himself, intentionally, in an unsafe position. He decided to run fast, jump off one leg with great momentum, grab the ball with two hands, dunk the ball, then realize he was in an unsafe position, then hang on the rim.....for safety. Would any coach NOT call that play a poor decision by both offensive players?

The rules allow all of it and it is legal. It just seems weird.

The reward to me is not calling the technical. It just seems weird.

OK, topic done.

The rest of your post is entirely subjective and has nothing to do with officiating or rules application.

And not calling a technical foul is not a "reward." That is a "weird" way to look at our responsibilities as officials.

How about we just adjudicate the game by rules. Your opinion that 99% of dunks are "not necessary" and that "dunking is a huge waste of physical energy" is just that, an opinion, which has NOTHING to do with officiating and is WAY off base anyway. IMO, of course.

So you make an original post who's premise i disagree with in principle. Then you come back with unrelated arugments and issues not connected to any actual rules, or purpose we are trying to serve. Then after this string of nonsense you try to declare the discussion over. Do two things for me:

1) Please do not let my wife know that her style of argument is catching on.

2) Please stop evaluating plays as a coach or as a sports fan in general. Evaluate them as the official. IF I team wants to press, run the grinnell system, chuck up bad threes, good threes, run all their plays for alley oop dunks that is on them. ONe team wants to clutch and grab. One team doesn't want to defend at all. You officiate the game in front of you. You don't reward or punish based on style of play or your sense of how the game should be played.

ps. That Calapari guy who coaches in college and has coached pros . . . he teaches kids to attack the rim and once they activated the help to throw it off the backboard for the weak side to rebound and dunk/ just straight dunk. He's a pretty good coach. I'm not sure a play that excites the home crowd by having a dunk is always a poor decision. I don't know and don't care what kind of shooter each player, I don't know and don't care what kind of offense they run. They play the game, I call the game. I don't penalize players because they choose to make basketball plays that I think aren't the basketball plays they should make.

Sounds like potato created a new account.