Question about offensive basket interference

[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.