Contacting The Backboard

pbrad59 · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 28, 2003, 05:49pm

In a recent game A1 shoots a layup, B1 attempts to block the shot and contacts (slaps) the backboard hard enough to cause the backboard and rim to move. The shot did not go in. I called basket interference and awarded the points to A1. However, after reviewing the rules book I noticed that basket interference does not specifically mention contacting the backboard. However, the case book talks about hard contact on the backboard 10.3.5 but in case one states that the contact is legal. Help me out here, was the call correct?

BktBallRef · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 28, 2003, 06:07pm

No, the call wasn't correct.

Either the ball or the basket must be touched to have BI. Touching the backboard is nothing.

If you felt the contact with the board was intentional and was so violtent that it couldn't be ignored, then it's a technical fouls.

But it isn't BI.

bkiledad · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 28, 2003, 11:58pm

I came to the site tonight to talk about this exact same play. In our game the center official correctly did not call basket interference, nor did the trail. Of course, the coach of team A went psycho on us. At halftime I assured them both that we had made the correct call with a no-call.

However, I think that this rule should be changed. It states in the rule book that if anyone touches the net while the ball in on the rim that it is basket interference, so why shouldn't contact with the backboard that causes the backboard to shake be the same? To me it is common sense that the shaking backboard (although caused inadvertently) had an impact on the shot, so therefore should be a violation. Am I crazy?

Mregor · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Dec 01, 2003, 11:01am

Intentionally slapping the backboard is a tech per 10-3-5B. I agree with bkiledad that it seems to fit the definition of BI.

Mregor

BktBallRef · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Dec 01, 2003, 11:25am

Quote:

Originally posted by bkiledad
However, I think that this rule should be changed. It states in the rule book that if anyone touches the net while the ball in on the rim that it is basket interference, so why shouldn't contact with the backboard that causes the backboard to shake be the same? To me it is common sense that the shaking backboard (although caused inadvertently) had an impact on the shot, so therefore should be a violation. Am I crazy?

You're logic probably isn't crazy but until the NFHS changes the rule, it's not BI.

oc · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Dec 01, 2003, 11:28pm

On a recent quiz I was taking there was a question like this:

A-1 while making a lay-up intentionally slaps the backboard. The official calls a T. Is the official correct?

I had problems with this one. If I saw it in a game I wouldn't want to call a T on this and if I had to defend it would say it wasn't intentional/didn't effect the shot. However the test question specifically says A-1 did it intentionally.

What's the call? Is the test answer and the real life answer the same?

Adam · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 02, 2003, 07:56am

It depends.

Barry C. Morris · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 02, 2003, 08:04am

Quote:

Originally posted by oc
On a recent quiz I was taking there was a question like this:

A-1 while making a lay-up intentionally slaps the backboard. The official calls a T. Is the official correct?

I had problems with this one. If I saw it in a game I wouldn't want to call a T on this and if I had to defend it would say it wasn't intentional/didn't effect the shot. However the test question specifically says A-1 did it intentionally.

What's the call? Is the test answer and the real life answer the same?

Yes, they are the same. If a player intentionally slaps the backboard, it's time for T.

Of course, in real life, it is not written down in paper whether the slap was intentional. That is a judgement call. However, if you adjudge it to be intentional, whack it.

Back In The Saddle · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 03, 2003, 10:04am

I wonder about the logic behind this call. The rationale behind the T, as far as I understand, is to punish a player for deliberately slapping the backboard to either a) make it vibrate to cause an opponent's shot to miss, or b) cause damage to the goal. Both are unsporting actions. Assuming this is correct (which is not a given!), then I would be very reluctant to T up A1 for slapping the backboard on his/her own layup. Let him/her cause his/her own shot to miss, and let A1's coach help him/her see the light

bob jenkins · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 03, 2003, 10:10am

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
I wonder about the logic behind this call. The rationale behind the T, as far as I understand, is to punish a player for deliberately slapping the backboard to either a) make it vibrate to cause an opponent's shot to miss, or b) cause damage to the goal.

You missed showboating, frustration, etc.

That's what makes it a T on A.

rcwilco · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 03, 2003, 01:12pm

I usually call a couple of T's for intentionally hitting backboard each season, almost always in rec, church, etc. rarely in high school. I've never had a complaint from player or coach as they usually know they can't do that. I make sure it is intentional and if it is border line I will warn them.

theboys · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 03, 2003, 01:26pm

Before the "swinging elbows" rule was changed to simply a violation, a lot of you said you were reluctant to make the call because of the severity of the penalty (it was a T too?). Do you feel the same way about this call? If it was changed from a T to BI would you call it more often?