[bob jenkins]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimcrket:

Originally posted by jimcrket:
You would count the unmade attempt based on goaltending. I agree that if you don't penalize the act and it goes on, you have created a situation for yourself and the opposng team which will require more explanation when you do decide to call it than was necessary had you made the call initially. I hope the federation still believes that we are capable of exercising good judgement and know when an act is intentional or not. If they would require three man mechanics at the varsity level, this type of situation would be addressed with more frequency and could possibly eliminate it all together.

---

Incidentally, the rule would refer to basket interference specifically. As I interpret it, the backboard is a part of the "basket" and therefore any act which alters the position of the rim, basket or support and prevents a ball from having the opportunity to go through the hoop is interferring with the flight or path of the shot.

Jim --

I'm a little unsure of whether you are proposing a rule change (i.e., "What you'd like to see if you were king"), or are discussing how to interpret the current rule.

If it's the former, then ignore the rest of this message.

If it's the latter, you are wrong, under NFHS rules.

The "basket" does not include the backboard. See 2-10-1. It was also in the definitions, until this (1999-2000) year.

So, contacting the backboard cannot be BI or goaltending -- whether that contact is incidental, accidental, intentional, deliberate, unsportsmanlike, ...

The shot counts, or not, on its own merits. The contact with the backboard is penalized, or not, on its own merits. It's two separate plays that happen at the same time.

See case 10.3.6 for more discussion.

I think the rule change is just to bring the rule in line with the case comment and to make it more clear what is to be penalized and how.