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?

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?

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.