I understand the "intentional" part of the rule, but I thought if the ball was above, or on the rim, and the kid whacks the board, even unintentionally, you had something?

Incorrect, at least for FED.

I was intrigued by the "on the rim" part of his post.

Is the backboard not considered part of the basket? If it is, then we have basket interference if a defender slaps the backboard while the ball is "on the rim".

Wow. The basket is very clearly defined.

If the ball is on the rim and the backboard is slapped, it's probably not a legitimate attempt to block the shot, and the correct call would be a T. And of course, if the ball rolls off the rim in this instance, you can't count it no matter how hard the board is hit.

1-10-1 does define the basket, but what harm is there in asking? You know.... Besides being treated like a moron?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Because you will learn more by looking it up yourself than by just asking for the answer.

I understand. However 1. My rule book wasn't handy at the time, and 2. I was curious what a respected veteran such as yourself thought. And furthermore, I couldn't find a play in this year's case book (can't find the old ones as they are packed away somewhere since I moved) that may have answered this exact scenario.

And to be fair, the vast majority of questions presented here could be answered by saying "read the rule book".

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When this happened in a game a couple years ago and my partner made the call, which I disagreed with, I only asked him "if he thought it was a valid block attempt". He said "no" so we moved on with the T (although I think he kicked the call) his justification was correct and I wasn't going to argue.

It's something we discussed in the locker room and we disagreed but you have to understand that he made the call, he correctly justified the call, he gets to deal with the irate coaches to back up his call.

I didn't mean to treat you like a moron. I was honestly surprised by the question. Asking if the backboard is part of the basket doesn't seem much different to me from asking if the ball is part of the basket.

Ok. That's fair.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So if the ball is on the top of the ring, defender intentionally whacks the backboard with no intentions of blocking the shot, the ball rolls in the basket:
Count the basket, Technical on the defender, shoot 2 shots and get the ball at half court? NFHS rules please. So this can be a 7 point swing?

Slapping the backboard does not kill the ball from scoring. So if you are so inclined to make this call, then the basket is still going to count if the ball goes in.

Peace

Thank you

You say toe-mah-toe...
 

I wonder if everyone is overthinking this word 'or.' Or, ironically, if it is another case of a poorly worded rule...

What if it is intended to mean "<i>intentionally</i> slapping or striking the backboard <b>so as</b> to make the ring vibrate." In other words, making the ring vibrate was the intent of slapping the backboard. I honestly don't know how you can slap the backboard hard enough that you would consider a T, yet the ring wouldn't vibrate.

A player thinks "<i>geez...I won't be able to actually touch the ball and block the shot, but if I hit the backboard with enough force that the ring vibrates, the ball may fall off and/or not go in...</i>.

I know that the debate has been had that it is very difficult to adjudicate a players intent, but just a thought. If this seems silly, someone please shut this line of thinking down very quickly!