Slap the backboard T?
 

Here's the play.... offensive player is heading to shoot a layup. Trail defender goes to block shot and just misses touching the ball (in fact he may have actually grazed it). His momentum causes him to slap the backboard while the ball is above or on the rim. The shot falls out and misses.

What is the call here?

The referee called it a Technical foul, but I'm not sure that's right. I thought if it was an attempt to block the shot it wasn't a technical. The rule I found says it's a technical if:

ART. 4 . . . Illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
a. Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage.
b. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

It seems to me that the word 'intentionally' refers to every part of art 4, b. So this should not have been a technical because it was not intentional. Am I interpreting this correct?

No call, hitting the backboard was incidental to the shot block attempt.

From The List ...
 

It was clearly not a frustration or attention slap. The player attempted to block the shot and the referee in question said because the board was hit so hard with the ball on the rim he had no alternative but to issue a technical foul.

I also asked if it mattered if the ball was actually blocked? The response I was given was, that even if the defender actually got part of the ball on the block attempt if the follow thru caused him to hit the backboard while the ball was on the rim its still a technical foul.

The vast majority of HS officials have an understanding of that rule which is different from that of the referee with whom you spoke.

As explained, this referee was incorrect.

And, sadly, it doesn't sound like that official will ever accept being wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

He must be moonlighting as an NBA or G-League ref on his nights off.

That is why I was so surprised by the explanation that was given to me. Thought this was a pretty commonly known rule. The funniest thing about it was that the referee approached me after halftime to tell me that they looked the rule up at half and that he got it right.

Is this the same guy that thought only head coach and players could stand during a 30 sec time out?:eek:

On facebook.

Good Vibrations (Beach Boys, 1966) ...
 

Way back in twentieth century, I believe that the decision to charge a technical foul for slapping the backboard was based on whether, or not, the slap caused the basket/backboard to vibrate. Of course, that is no longer the case, a slap resulting from an attempt to block a shot can cause the basket/backboard to shake like a Polaroid picture and it's play on.

Am I right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

Hey. A reference to OutKast and the Beach Boys in the same Forum post. Not too shabby.

You Can Look It Up ...
 

To play the devil's advocate, the word highlighted is "or", so let's separate that clause, as one is allowed to do when dealing with "or":

A player shall not: Illegally contact the backboard/ring by: ... causing the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

This, in essence, takes intent out of the equation.

Could this be why he rationalized calling it a technical foul after looking it up?

Of course, he would have to ignore the casebook play, and the Point of Emphasis:

10.3.4 SITUATION: A1 tries for a goal, and (a) B1 jumps and attempts to block
the shot but instead slaps or strikes the backboard and the ball goes into the basket;
or (b) B1 vibrates the ring as a result of pulling on the net and the ball does
not enter the basket. RULING: In (a) legal and the basket counts; and (b) a technical
foul is charged to B1 and there is no basket. COMMENT: The purpose of the
rule is to penalize intentional contact with the backboard while a shot or try is
involved or placing a hand on the backboard to gain an advantage. 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 10-3-6.

2008-09 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
4. SLAPPING THE BACKBOARD. The incidents of players slapping the backboard are increasing throughout the country. The rules specify that “intentionally slapping or striking the backboard” is a technical foul (10-3-5). The spirit and intent of that rule is to penalize a player for drawing attention to him/herself or as a means of venting frustration. A player who strikes the backboard in a legitimate attempt to block a try for goal should not be penalized. Basket interference cannot be ruled in either of the above situations. Basket interference only occurs if the ball is interfered with while in the cylinder above the basket ring or by touching either the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket (4-6).

If your area uses assigners, I would email the assigner.

Ummm, when did I mention that?

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!

Exception ...
 

Here's the citation Jqb12 requested:

6-7: The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
Art. 5 An official’s whistle is blown (see exception below).
Art. 7 A foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs (see exception below).
Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap for field goal ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when: Article 5, or 7 occurs while a try or tap for a field goal is in flight.

As Strong As The Rock Of Gibraltar ...
 

Depends on the backboard supports and how they're anchored.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.a...=0&w=300&h=300

I think the "or" is correct as is.

Simply slapping the backboard with no attempt to play the ball should be a T whether or not it causes the ring to vibrate. Some backboards are much more solidly attached than others.

Causing the ring to vibrate by other methods, in addition to slapping the backboard, would also be T worthy....such as slapping the ring itself (before the ball is there).

Backboard/Ring ...
 

Good point. Thanks for the reminder.