JimGolf, you have posted ELLINGER'S good strong position on slapping the backboard. Although, I am uncertain about his Basket Interference, BI, information. Maybe it is just the way (context) he worded the following paragraphs...
[QUOTE]
Dont confuse the play with basket interference, because
points can never be awarded for that infraction. Heres an example: the ball is on the rim when a defensive player intentionally slaps the backboard. Because of the vibration, the ball bounces off the rim and does not enter the goal. A technical foul is called correctly but basket interference can never be called. Many officials incorrectly
(CALL Basket Interference - my clarification,)count the goal and administer the technical foul. The correct rule may not seem fair, but thats the rule.
Comment: The purpose of the rule is to penalize intentional or deliberate contact with the backboard. Contact, which occurs incidentally in playing the game is allowed, but when slapping or striking is intentional or deliberate or is so forceful it cannot be ignored, a technical foul must be charged. The player who contacts the board illegally is either hoping the contact will cause the try to be unsuccessful, or is doing so to draw attention, or as a means of frustration.
[QUOTE]
My points:
#1 An official should award points for BI if the violation is by the defense (9-11 Penalty 1). However, Ellinger is correct that BI is the WRONG call for slapping the backboard. The definition of BI is very specific and it includes contact with the ball, basket, or net - NOT THE BACKBOARD. BI is the wrong call for slapping the backboard.
#2 Ellinger's last sentence (that I have quoted) is also a bit of a twist from the casebook statement. 10.3.6 in the casebook says:
Quote:
|
A player who strikes either backboard so forcefully it cannot be ignored BECAUSE it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration MAY be assessed a technical foul pursuant to Rule 10-3-8 (part (a) I assume - unsporting foul indicating resentment).
|
I think Ellinger got it right because he inserted the word "illegal." However, the case book implies that acts drawing attention or venting frustration MAY be worthy of a T (that these acts are illegal).
Ellinger is stepping a little beyond the rules and being very firm about his decision - he uses the word "must" rather than may. And he states illegality before he states the criteria for illegality.
Just a couple observations about the information you have quoted. Thanks Jim.
