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.

Depends if the backboard or goal shakes or moves. If he is trying to block the ball, I would disregard it. But if he did it intentionally, I would call basket interference. Now if the ball is in the square and he touches it, then its automatically goaltending. My 2 cents.

Rules references, please.

And if you did call BI, you would be completely wrong. You really need to review the definition of basket interference. It's R9-11.

It has been so nice to coast along doing girls games and not have to worry about any of this! Even so, I have called the slapping the backboard thing once, at camp, and got snaps from the evaluator for it. So the discussion has been helpful, even for a "guurrlls" ref. The trick, folks, is to heed the words of Chuck, mick, bob, Tony and Jurassic. They know what they talkin' bout.

rob, I thought it was you and me against the world, but not if you're gonna make that call :(

Chuck, I do think its us against the world! I will also add this statement too, if you go directly buy the rules, then the game would be stopped every second. Game management is also a big part of the game and if someone slaps the backboard and it shakes causing the ball the be dislodged from the rim, I will call BI. If the player slaps the backboard trying to get an advantage or just showing off, I will T him up! If you ask me, its all judgement! Thats my other 2 cents, now I am broke!

This call has nothing to do with game management.

You'd have been better off using that $.02 to buy a rule book or go to a camp.

Do that, and I guarantee that you will have a great future behind you.

Why do you insist on making up your own rules? Aren't the ones in the NFHS rule book good enough for you?

No need to get nasty about it, I was just giving my opinion...sorry if it has rubbed you the wrong way. I do follow the rules and I have a rule book and actually did excellent on the test. I guess from now on, i will just quote the rules and leave my opinion out of it. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Unless we're discussing what the rule *should be*, there's not much room for opinion on this question.

Slapping the backboard is either a T or it's nothing. It's never BI.

Thanks for your input. But like I said, not need to get upset or pushy.

Thanks for your input. But like I said, no need to get upset or pushy.

rob, that's just not true. The rules instruct us to call contact situations by the advantage/disadvantage principle. So even tho there is contact every second, that does not require us to stop the game every second.

True, but this is a rules question, and not a game management situation.


Then your call would be absolutely 100%, without question, without subject to interpretation, incorrect. I'm not being nasty, pushy, or anything else. But by rule, you are wrong. And if you make that call while being observed, I guarantee you will catch a boatload of grief for it. Heck, even if you're not being observed, I'd give you grief as your partner after the game.

You say you have a rulebook. Do me a favor and read rule 4-6. Tell me if that sounds like you're supposed to "manage" those situations.

The problem is that it actually re-inforces the popular myth that it is BI when the the backboard is slapped. I had a coach beg for that just last night.

To call this mythical rule (like all the others) makes it harder for the rest of us who call it right. We have reason to be upset...particularly when someone insists on continueing to call it wrong even when the correct call is clearly demonstarted.