Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kbilla
Do you see what I mean though about this being fundamentally unfair? If the ball happened to go in you would count it and still assess the T. Yet the reason it didn't go in (at least potentially) is b/c the act that brought the T caused it not to...I don't see the reasoning behind excluding the backboard from this provision, until they make rings that are detached from backboards and floating on their own, if you move the backboard you also move the ring! I would hope this would be addressed at some point, but I suppose there are bigger things...
|
It is addressed. Read case book play 10.3.5(b).
You have separate calls and separate rules. Deliberately hitting the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate is a technical foul. Note the word "deliberately". It's a judgment call always. You can
legallyknock the hell out if the backboard if it's judged to be a part of a valid attempt to block a shot. That's rule 10-3-5(b). You can
only penalize that act as BI or goaltending also if the act meets the criteria of BI under rule 4-6 or goaltending under rule 4-22. Simply hitting the board does not meet the definitions as described in those rules.
Note that the play in the original post is
NOT a technical foul either if the official judged that the defender was legitimately trying to block the shot.