What is the call?

On a fast break A1 attempts layup while ball is on rim B1 slaps the backboard.

A)Try is good.
B)Try is not good. (yes the slapping of the backboard cause the try not to be good)

Thanks
ScifiREF

Intent is the key. Did B intentionally slap the backboad, or was it a result of his attempt to block the shot. If intentional, by rule it is a technical foul.

In practice, if the ball goes in, I usually have a no call and we're going the other way.

If I judged it intentional, we shoot the 2 shot tech. with ball to A at mid-court

Technical foul, either way, if the slap is ruled intentional, (not part of a natural motion of a shot block attempt) or if it caused the ring to vibrate. This cannot be basket interference or goaltending, even if it appears that the contact caused the shot not to be good. (This, I think, would be a tough call, anyway.)

[/B][/QUOTE]

Technical foul, either way, if the slap is ruled intentional, (not part of a natural motion of a shot block attempt) or if it caused the ring to vibrate. This cannot be basket interference or goaltending, even if it appears that the contact caused the shot not to be good. (This, I think, would be a tough call, anyway.) [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey justanotherref, do you have a rule reference? Cuz, I think I'd call basket interference, if the vibrating caused the try to miss...

Hey justanotherref, do you have a rule reference? Cuz, I think I'd call basket interference, if the vibrating caused the try to miss... [/B][/QUOTE]Hey zebracz,do you have a rule reference that would allow you to make that call?

Rule Reference NFHS 10-3-5b. specifically states that 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 is in the cylinder above the basket, you charge the player with a player technical. The rule makes no mention of the ball on the rim.

Rule Reference NFHS 9-11-1 states that basket interference occurs when a player...touches the ball or basket, (including the net), when the ball is on or within either basket. There is no mention of the backboard. My interpretation of this rule would make the backboard part of the basket, thereby making the striking of the backboard while the ball is on the rim, basket interference, that maybe subject to debate. There is no mention of intentionally striking the backboard. There is an exception to this rule if the player's hand is in legal contact with the ball.

Sigh. Why does this persist? Why? The BI rules are so black and white. :(

No debate. Your interpretation is 100% wrong. The backboard is NOT part of the basket. See rule 1-10-1. It defines exactly what the basket is - i.e. the ring,it's flange and braces, and the net.

Relying on your interpretation, there is no basket interference. You make the call.

You just made it, Willie. There's no basket interference. What else you got in mind? :confused:

There is a gaping hole in the rules on this one. If the ball is on the rim and a player unintentionally touches the net, you've got BI. In a hypothetical, if the ball is on the rim and a defensive player unintentionally strikes the backboard causing the rim to vibrate, you've got nothing. Does that seem fair to you? As my old buddy Spike Barruth says when I ask him about being fair, "Every dunk in college ball is a technical foul, but does anyone call it."

#1: There is no gaping hole in the rule...you might not like the rule, but that's the way it goes. And if you would seriously call a T for unintentionally touching the net, then there are bigger problems here than disagreeing with a rule.

#2: whether it is fair or not makes no difference...call it correctly - just ask Bobby Knight and Ted Valentine about that rule...would be a fun conversation to eavesdrop on...

#3: Who is Spike Barruth, and why is he giving you such bad advice on rules about dunking???

I think old Leonard is pullin' your leg a bit...maybe what he means is more often than not the monster dunk ends up with the kid hanging on the rim for a second or 2 longer than needed and for no good reason.

Actually, I believe he's arguing that slapping the backboard should be BI, not that touching the net should be a T.

This problem has been around forever
 

It invites mayhem in the coaching mind every tme somebody slaps the backboard with the ball on the rim. Officials are asked to judge hundreds of things - they should be empowered to judge whether or not the action was:

1) intentional

2) had an effect

There has to be intent - you have to let players protect themselves from banging into the backboard.

Wake up, rules committee.