Disallow the Goal?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Most definitely. I was Lead tableside at the opposite end of the court from you and Mark. I had an And-1 and I saw a hand pull on the net as the ball was about to drop completely through.

Did Mark have any thoughts on it? He didn't say anything about the play after the game.

We talked on the play briefly. Mark asked if it was a rule difference between the NBA vs NFHS/NCAA. Under NBA rules, it's not a violation unless the pulling of the net causes the ball to take an unnatural bounce.

All and all, said it was a good one to lay off on.

Originally Posted by APG

Under NBA rules, it's not a violation unless the pulling of the net causes the ball to take an unnatural bounce.

Which is the intent of the NFHS/NCAA rule and the way I call it.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Which is the intent of the NFHS/NCAA rule and the way I call it.

It is?

9.11.1 SITUATION D:

The ball is on the ring of Team A's basket when A1 hits the net.

RULING: Basket interference by A1. No goal. The ball became dead when A1 touched the net as it is part of the basket. (4-6; 6-7-9)


NCAAM A.R. 225/NCAAW A.R. 231:

Before the ball is in flight for a two-point try, A1 is fouled in the act of shooting. A1’s try enters the basket. A2 touches the ring while the ball is in the basket.

RULING: Basket interference on A2. The goal shall be canceled. A1 shall be awarded two free throws because of the foul. (Rule 9-18.3 and 10-1 Penalty d[1])

I realize the NCAA case book plays only mention the ring but there aren't any that mention the net. However, since touching the net while the ball is within the basket is also BI under both codes I'll take a leap of faith that the ruling would be the same.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It is?



I realize the NCAA case book plays only mention the ring but there aren't any that mention the net. However, since touching the net while the ball is within the basket is also BI under both codes I'll take a leap of faith that the ruling would be the same.

I see it happen quite often and have yet to have seen it called even once. In all the times I've seen it there has never been a word said about it by coaches, announcers, players, or anyone around the game. Most people realize that merely touching the net as the ball is falling through or on the rim really isn't enough to affect the shot. Grabbing the net is, of course, different.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I see it happen quite often and have yet to have seen it called even once. In all the times I've seen it there has never been a word said about it by coaches, announcers, players, or anyone around the game. Most people realize that merely touching the net as the ball is falling through or on the rim really isn't enough to affect the shot. Grabbing the net is, of course, different.

Oh, I understand that part. However, the day one of my NCAAW or HS assignors tells me the intent of the rule is "it's not a violation unless the pulling of the net causes the ball to take an unnatural bounce" will be the first.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Oh, I understand that part. However, the day one of my NCAAW or HS assignors tells me the intent of the rule is "it's not a violation unless the pulling of the net causes the ball to take an unnatural bounce" will be the first.

Every time they see this play and don't criticize the officials for not calling it, they are effectively doing exactly that.

[BryanV21]

What's the definition of "on" the rim?

The OP makes it sound like the ball had already gone past the ring. At that point it doesn't sound like the ball is "on" the rim, and therefore should be counted.