Question about offensive basket interference

[rthomas]

Play of the game #3 on the Duke Blue Planet recap video.

Nolan Smith is driving the lane through traffic and makes a great layup. But one of the Plumlee bros., Miles I think, grabs the rim, maybe touches the ball, definitely alters the flight of the ball, ie the ball bounces back up out of the rim, then the ball falls through the hoop. The announcers say wow what a shot, etc.

But why is that not called offensive interference. I've seen hand on the rim when the ball goes through the hoop in several games this year but it's not called. Is this something that is now ignored?

[Lord Ash]

I am glad you mentioned it, I saw it too... on ONE replay it actually looked like it wasn't Miles who touched it but actually a Miami player. There was another play earlier this year involving Miles that also drew my attention, and I wondered if maybe there was a rule issue I didn't understand.

Oh, and when can we talk about that Miami player hitting that three with about a minute to go and COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY faking getting hit by Kyle, when the replay showed contact was missed by a solid number of inches?:)

[PADukeMom]

Yea I saw that too. Yea it was & I am happy it wasn't called.

[4decadedukie]

I, too, saw it and was almost certain offensive basket/calendar interference would be called. In my mind, this was one of an appreciable number of questionable decisions (Nolan's charge, Ryan's block, and so forth) that were made by the officiating crew. They have a difficult job, the action is fast, fields-of-view are often blocked, and so forth; however, I thought their performance left a good deal to be desired -- most of it favoring Miami (admittedly, I could be biased here).

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I am glad you mentioned it, I saw it too... on ONE replay it actually looked like it wasn't Miles who touched it but actually a Miami player. There was another play earlier this year involving Miles that also drew my attention, and I wondered if maybe there was a rule issue I didn't understand.

Oh, and when can we talk about that Miami player hitting that three with about a minute to go and COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY faking getting hit by Kyle, when the replay showed contact was missed by a solid number of inches?:)
I thought we should have lost the basket on offensive basket interference (the ball bounced up when it hit the net before going back down through the net) and Kyle solidly smacked the shooter in the chin with his open palm when he made the 3-pointer, or so it looked from my vantage point in the stands.

[DukeFanSince1990]

I thought we should have lost the basket on offensive basket interference (the ball bounced up when it hit the net before going back down through the net) and Kyle solidly smacked the shooter in the chin with his open palm when he made the 3-pointer, or so it looked from my vantage point in the stands.

It was actually a closed fist. I am surprised the shooter could see the basket thru the spray of teeth and blood.

[left_hook_lacey]

I saw the play in questions as well and too wondered why it wasn't called. I figured it must have happned late enough going through the hoop that the ref just let it go but Miles certainly got a hand on it at some point during/after it went through the iron. I'd love to read the official rule on a play like that for future reference.

I also thought the officiating in this game was lack-luster, but not in any particular teams favor. I just found it to be inconsistant on both sides, especially with block/charge calls. And there were so many uncalled walks(mostly by us) and palming/carrying (mostly by Miami) that I lost count and began to wonder what a walk or carry really looked like anymore.

I missed the Kyle "Flair chop" in question.

[Jfrosh]

Oh, and when can we talk about that Miami player hitting that three with about a minute to go and COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY faking getting hit by Kyle, when the replay showed contact was missed by a solid number of inches?:)

I am glad you mentioned that. I too went back and looked at it several times from the original angle and the replay. Kyle really did not get even close to him. I was actually impressed at what a good acting job he did. It would have to be tough to do while concentrating on making the shot. That was one of the few good calls by the officials Sunday.

[Lord Ash]

I thought we should have lost the basket on offensive basket interference (the ball bounced up when it hit the net before going back down through the net) and Kyle solidly smacked the shooter in the chin with his open palm when he made the 3-pointer, or so it looked from my vantage point in the stands.

Oz, it may have looked that way from certain angles (from the regular game camera it looked like there was contact) but from another angle from the opposite side there looked to be absolutely no contact. Given the Miami guy's reaction (which was a bizarre spasm that looked more akin to the reaction of getting stripped when going up with the ball down low) I expected murder:)

You know, I sort of miss the guy who did the reffing review (I am sorry I don't remember his name.) An inside point of view was always interesting!

[alteran]

You know, I sort of miss the guy who did the reffing review (I am sorry I don't remember his name.)

The Playcaller. Wouldn't mind seeing a Playcaller column on this game, either. Man I thought we were getting jobbed out there. We spent most of the game with twice as many fouls as Miami. We only got close to even in the second half when Miami started fouling to stop the clock. We were in the bonus less than 8 minutes into the second half, Miami hit it at about 2:30 left to play. They actually had to make two silly fouls to get to the bonus so they could start running their end game strategy.

And this is in Cameron.

I thought we got hosed. Maybe I'm just biased. Usually The Playcaller helps me dial my paranoia down a little.

[dball]

Play of the game #3 on the Duke Blue Planet recap video.

Nolan Smith is driving the lane through traffic and makes a great layup. But one of the Plumlee bros., Miles I think, grabs the rim, maybe touches the ball, definitely alters the flight of the ball, ie the ball bounces back up out of the rim, then the ball falls through the hoop. The announcers say wow what a shot, etc.

But why is that not called offensive interference. I've seen hand on the rim when the ball goes through the hoop in several games this year but it's not called. Is this something that is now ignored?

In game action, it did appear he may have hit the ball or rim, but the replay seems to show he never actually touches the rim (or ball). It did appear a Miami player hit the net which caused the ball to bounce up oddly before going through.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

The Playcaller. Wouldn't mind seeing a Playcaller column on this game, either. Man I thought we were getting jobbed out there. We spent most of the game with twice as many fouls as Miami. We only got close to even in the second half when Miami started fouling to stop the clock. We were in the bonus less than 8 minutes into the second half, Miami hit it at about 2:30 left to play. They actually had to make two silly fouls to get to the bonus so they could start running their end game strategy.

And this is in Cameron.

I thought we got hosed. Maybe I'm just biased. Usually The Playcaller helps me dial my paranoia down a little.
I was sitting with CameronBornandBred discussing the reffing last night and recounted the old Bobby Knight story to him.
Knight: Hey ref, can you give me a technical for what I'm thinking?
Ref: No.
Knight: Good, because I think you're calling a terrible game.
Ref: Tweeeeet! Technical foul on Knight!

Personally, I thought it was pretty poor last night. Kelly and MP1 got called for a couple of phantom fouls early, the charge on Nolan, which turned out to be a good thing for him (motivation!), and just the general lack of consistency throughout the game. But it was what it was and it didn't come close to costing us the game. Next play, next game.

[rthomas]

Thanks for the answers. I thought offensive basket interference was the call but the refs are too blind to see it. It's not that hard to call when the ball pops up.

I'm more like Brian Davis than Jim Tressel. That's Brian Davis the golfer, by the way.

[ricks68]

I replayed it a number of times when it happened as I saw it pop back up and then go through again. It looked like it went through the rim and then got hit back up again before falling back through the end of the net. The question I had was whether one of our players hit it back up or one of theirs. It looked to me that it was possibly Mason, but I have since erased the tape and cannot confirm again. If it was, then could it have really been a violation of some sort since it had not yet cleared the bottom of the net? I vaguely seem to remember something like that happening in the past, and it was ruled sme kind of violation due to the ball not clearing the bottom of the net. Sounds crazy for something to be called like that, but then, I thought so too at the time. Can someone who knows the rules for something like that clarify it for me?:confused:

ricks

[The Playcaller]

The Playcaller. Wouldn't mind seeing a Playcaller column on this game, either. Man I thought we were getting jobbed out there. We spent most of the game with twice as many fouls as Miami. We only got close to even in the second half when Miami started fouling to stop the clock. We were in the bonus less than 8 minutes into the second half, Miami hit it at about 2:30 left to play. They actually had to make two silly fouls to get to the bonus so they could start running their end game strategy.

And this is in Cameron.

I thought we got hosed. Maybe I'm just biased. Usually The Playcaller helps me dial my paranoia down a little.

I looked up into the sky and saw the bat signal;)

I didn't get to see too much of the Miami game, but I hope to be able to give it a look soon and maybe try to write something up this weekend. I didn't see the play from the start of the thread, but I did cue up Nolan's charge after I read Jim Sumner's write-up of the game. After seeing the play, I have to disagree with his description ("dubious") of the call. Ed Corbett got the play right, and when you adjust for the degree of difficulty it was just about as good a call as you'll ever see.

From a fan's perspective, though, I'm thrilled that the call bothered Nolan so much:)

[devildeac]

I was sitting with CameronBornandBred discussing the reffing last night and recounted the old Bobby Knight story to him.
Knight: Hey ref, can you give me a technical for what I'm thinking?
Ref: No.
Knight: Good, because I think you're calling a terrible game.
Ref: Tweeeeet! Technical foul on Knight!

Personally, I thought it was pretty poor last night. Kelly and MP1 got called for a couple of phantom fouls early, the charge on Nolan, which turned out to be a good thing for him (motivation!), and just the general lack of consistency throughout the game. But it was what it was and it didn't come close to costing us the game. Next play, next game.

Interesting you remember that as a Knight story and davekay1971 has it as his sig and has Valvano quoted in it. Hmmm....

[devildeac]

I looked up into the sky and saw the bat signal;)

I didn't get to see too much of the Miami game, but I hope to be able to give it a look soon and maybe try to write something up this weekend. I didn't see the play from the start of the thread, but I did cue up Nolan's charge after I read Jim Sumner's write-up of the game. After seeing the play, I have to disagree with his description ("dubious") of the call. Ed Corbett got the play right, and when you adjust for the degree of difficulty it was just about as good a call as you'll ever see.

From a fan's perspective, though, I'm thrilled that the call bothered Nolan so much:)

If this is the correct call, then how did one of the Miami players get away with a forearm very similar (if not darn near identical) to Nolan's and we got nailed with a blocking call that time. It's gotta be consistent.

[MChambers]

Interesting you remember that as a Knight story and davekay1971 has it as his sig and has Valvano quoted in it. Hmmm....

Definitely a Valvano story, from one of Feinstein's books.

[peterjswift]

I replayed it a number of times when it happened as I saw it pop back up and then go through again. It looked like it went through the rim and then got hit back up again before falling back through the end of the net. The question I had was whether one of our players hit it back up or one of theirs. It looked to me that it was possibly Mason, but I have since erased the tape and cannot confirm again. If it was, then could it have really been a violation of some sort since it had not yet cleared the bottom of the net? I vaguely seem to remember something like that happening in the past, and it was ruled sme kind of violation due to the ball not clearing the bottom of the net. Sounds crazy for something to be called like that, but then, I thought so too at the time. Can someone who knows the rules for something like that clarify it for me?:confused:

ricks

I've always been under the impression that when the entire ball is below the rim, the shot is good, even if it gets punched back through somehow. A few years ago, Sheldon Williams had a pretty nice dunk (vs. UNC?), and because of the force of the dunk, the rebound of the rim going back upwards somehow created enough tension for the net to chuck the ball back out of the rim. The refs called "no goal," even though replays clearly show the ball going below the rim....even with the rim bent way down. I searched the NCAA rules book, and the only thing I can come up with is that a goal is:
Art. 1. A goal shall be made when:
a. A live ball that is not a throw-in enters the basket from above and
remains in or passes through; or
b. A free throw enters the basket from above and remains in or passes
through.

I guess the important thing seems to be "passing through" - so maybe that includes the net as opposed to just the rim.

[The Playcaller]

If this is the correct call, then how did one of the Miami players get away with a forearm very similar (if not darn near identical) to Nolan's and we got nailed with a blocking call that time. It's gotta be consistent.

I didn't see the play you're referring to. Whatever the case, the level of accuracy on that call has no bearing on what the correct call was on Nolan's play. Officials try to get ever play right. Doesn't always happen.

And just for fun (truly, I'm not trying to pick on you), calls for "consistency" are the the last refuge of coaches, players, and fans who feel like they just got jobbed. It's uncanny how seldom we hear cries of "just be consistent" from the coach or fan who's just had three or four whistles in a row go his way.

[TampaDuke]

While I agree with the sentiment that the officiating left a lot to be desired, my impression was that it wasn't overly biased against either team. We got away with our share, as did they (the basket interference is an example that went our way, as was Miles' "block" on the fast break where he obliterated the opposing player). The officials can't see everything in basketball, but some are definitely better than others.

I do wish we'd stop emphasizing drawing charges as a defensive strategy (I'd go so far as to stop handing out an award for drawing the most charges). Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good strategy to employ when used appropriately, under the basket, and against an out of control offensive player. I just don't like seeing guys like Ryan 30 feet from the basket trying to draw a charge on the ballhandler after coming around a pick. It doesn't add much defensively, looks contrived as he falls to the ground with minimal contact and gives us a reputation of diving which then impacts whether we get the next call under the basket in that game or in the future.

I'd instruct our guys that if they're going to employ the "stand still and get runover defense" around the basket, then DO NOT willingly fall over or embellish it. Only fall over if the contact actually knocks you over. That's a charge (assuming your feet are set, etc.) and, more importantly, almost always looks like a charge to everyone, refs included.

Away from the basket during a half-court offense set, don't even bother. Just hedge out on any picks to get the ballhandler moving away from the basket and then use the time to recover your primary defensive responsibility. Trying to draw the charge away from the basket almost always looks like you are deliberately trying to draw a charge in circumstances where the offensive player is not out of control, which I believe most refs are not only hesitant to call but are more likely to call a block.

[rasputin]

I've always been under the impression that when the entire ball is below the rim, the shot is good, even if it gets punched back through somehow. A few years ago, Sheldon Williams had a pretty nice dunk (vs. UNC?), and because of the force of the dunk, the rebound of the rim going back upwards somehow created enough tension for the net to chuck the ball back out of the rim. The refs called "no goal," even though replays clearly show the ball going below the rim....even with the rim bent way down. I searched the NCAA rules book, and the only thing I can come up with is that a goal is:

I guess the important thing seems to be "passing through" - so maybe that includes the net as opposed to just the rim.

I have a vague recollection of a play (don't know if it was a Duke game) in which the ball was dunked; there was a player, who may or may not have been the dunker, whose head was right underneath the basket at the moment of truth, the ball hit the guy's head and sprang back through the basket the wrong way. The call: no basket. Anybody remember this?

[CBDUKE]

While I agree with the sentiment that the officiating left a lot to be desired, my impression was that it wasn't overly biased against either team. We got away with our share, as did they (the basket interference is an example that went our way, as was Miles' "block" on the fast break where he obliterated the opposing player). The officials can't see everything in basketball, but some are definitely better than others.

I do wish we'd stop emphasizing drawing charges as a defensive strategy (I'd go so far as to stop handing out an award for drawing the most charges). Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good strategy to employ when used appropriately, under the basket, and against an out of control offensive player. I just don't like seeing guys like Ryan 30 feet from the basket trying to draw a charge on the ballhandler after coming around a pick. It doesn't add much defensively, looks contrived as he falls to the ground with minimal contact and gives us a reputation of diving which then impacts whether we get the next call under the basket in that game or in the future.

I'd instruct our guys that if they're going to employ the "stand still and get runover defense" around the basket, then DO NOT willingly fall over or embellish it. Only fall over if the contact actually knocks you over. That's a charge (assuming your feet are set, etc.) and, more importantly, almost always looks like a charge to everyone, refs included.

Away from the basket during a half-court offense set, don't even bother. Just hedge out on any picks to get the ballhandler moving away from the basket and then use the time to recover your primary defensive responsibility. Trying to draw the charge away from the basket almost always looks like you are deliberately trying to draw a charge in circumstances where the offensive player is not out of control, which I believe most refs are not only hesitant to call but are more likely to call a block.

This is why the referees have such a tough job. I was sitting 4 rows from the floor with the same view as the ref on Mile's block. I didn't see a foul either. I have looked at it on tape since and haven't changed my opinion.

[CDu]

Play of the game #3 on the Duke Blue Planet recap video.

Nolan Smith is driving the lane through traffic and makes a great layup. But one of the Plumlee bros., Miles I think, grabs the rim, maybe touches the ball, definitely alters the flight of the ball, ie the ball bounces back up out of the rim, then the ball falls through the hoop. The announcers say wow what a shot, etc.

But why is that not called offensive interference. I've seen hand on the rim when the ball goes through the hoop in several games this year but it's not called. Is this something that is now ignored?

The ball has to pass all the way through the net (i.e., be completely out of the basket) for it to be a basket. If on a dunk attempt, the ball hits your head before exiting the net and proceeds to bounce back up through the rim and out of the basket, it's not a goal. Therefore, any attempt to knock the ball back out of the goal while it's on the rim or in the net is goaltending. And any attempt to push the ball in before the ball goes all the way through the net is offensive basket interference.

I'm less certain about offensive basket interference. I've seen numerous dunk attempts where the ball bounces off the dunker's head before completely exiting the net and bounces out (for no basket) with no offensive interference called. So it may be that the offensive penalty is only called when the offensive player tries to alter the outcome after the ball reaches the cylinder (i.e., putback dunks/tip ins while the ball still is on or over the rim). It may be that if an offensive player accidentally knocks the ball from the net back out of the rim, it's simply no basket. In other words, goaltending is an illegal attempt (inadvertant or not) to keep a shot from going through the net, while offensive basket interference is an illegal attempt (inadvertant or not) to cause the ball to actually go through the basket.

In the play in question, I'm pretty sure no one touched the rim. Either Miles or the Miami post player (I'm not sure which) touched the ball as it was falling through the net, causing it to bounce back a bit. If the Miami player touched it, it should have been goaltending. Though the outcome would have been the same since the ball went in. As noted above, I'm less sure about the call if it was Miles who hit the ball. And it may be that the officials couldn't tell who hit it so they didn't want to make a call.

[ACCBBallFan]

I've always been under the impression that when the entire ball is below the rim, the shot is good, even if it gets punched back through somehow. A few years ago, Sheldon Williams had a pretty nice dunk (vs. UNC?), and because of the force of the dunk, the rebound of the rim going back upwards somehow created enough tension for the net to chuck the ball back out of the rim. The refs called "no goal," even though replays clearly show the ball going below the rim....even with the rim bent way down. I searched the NCAA rules book, and the only thing I can come up with is that a goal is:

I guess the important thing seems to be "passing through" - so maybe that includes the net as opposed to just the rim.I was under the same apparent misconception.

Even in the rules, it is somewhat ambiguous whether "basket" refers to the rim or the net or some combination, but in context it appears to be the net that ball would in other case remain lodged in as opposed to pass through. It would have helped it rule used either the term netting or rim rather than the third descriptor basket.

I thought it was the right call as it appeared to me a Miami player caused it to move upward before the Duke player caused it to pass through. I too have already deleted the TIVO and cannot confirm via replay.

Sounds like I could look at highlight #3 but have not done that yet.

I do think that on Miles outstanding block, he subsequently hammered the shooter, but it went to his head as well and he was called for a foul on the next attmepted block.

[-jk]

It's actually pretty clear by the rules.

By definition (rule 4-4.1), "Each basket consists of an 18-inch ring, its flange and braces, and
appended net through which players attempt to throw or tap the ball."

By definition (rule 4-5.2), "Basket interference occurs when a player:
a. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket;
b. Touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the ring as its lower base;
c. Reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball before it enters the cylinder; or
d. Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position."

If someone had touched it in the net, it was interference.

Whether the ref was able to see it or not is part of the uncertainty of the game.

-jk

[bdevil94]

[QUOTE=peterjswift;461335]... A few years ago, Sheldon Williams had a pretty nice dunk (vs. UNC?), and because of the force of the dunk, the rebound of the rim going back upwards somehow created enough tension for the net to chuck the ball back out of the rim. The refs called "no goal," even though replays clearly show the ball going below the rim....even with the rim bent way down.

I seem to recall that happening against Michigan State, and for some reason I think it was the 2005 NCAA Tournament... tough to give up a sure 2 points in that game!!!

[alteran]

I looked up into the sky and saw the bat signal;)

I didn't get to see too much of the Miami game, but I hope to be able to give it a look soon and maybe try to write something up this weekend. I didn't see the play from the start of the thread, but I did cue up Nolan's charge after I read Jim Sumner's write-up of the game. After seeing the play, I have to disagree with his description ("dubious") of the call. Ed Corbett got the play right, and when you adjust for the degree of difficulty it was just about as good a call as you'll ever see.

From a fan's perspective, though, I'm thrilled that the call bothered Nolan so much:)

Thanks for answering.

I was at this game, which usually sets my paranoia level to DEFCON 2. (I have not used DEFCON 1 since the retirements of Dean Smith and Lenny Wirtz.)

If you do get time to check out the full game I would certainly love to see what you have to say. I make no claims to rationality on the topic.

[left_hook_lacey]

Thanks for answering.

I was at this game, which usually sets my paranoia level to DEFCON 2. (I have not used DEFCON 1 since the retirements of Dean Smith and Lenny Wirtz.)

If you do get time to check out the full game I would certainly love to see what you have to say. I make no claims to rationality on the topic.

I'd love to see a break down of this game by the playcaller as well if possible. Not that I find this game to be questionable in terms of the officiating, but I'll take any opportunity to have a game review by someone that knows what he/she is talking about. I always learn a lot, and my blood pressure remains at a normal level for the next few games.

[snowdenscold]

By definition (rule 4-5.2), "Basket interference occurs when a player:
a. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket;
b. Touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the ring as its lower base;
c. Reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball before it enters the cylinder; or
d. Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position."
-jk

Interesting, it says 'any part' [of the ball] inside the cylinder. For some reason I thought it had to be the majority of the ball (i.e. the vertical axis) would be inside the cylinder. Maybe it's a depth-perception/angle issue but I could swear I've seen the ball tapped on numerous occasions where just a part of it would be in the cylinder.