By Rule, 9-11-1
A player shall not commit basket interference. Basket interference occurs when a player:
ART 1...Touches the ball or basket, (including the net), when the ball is on or within either basket.

I have heard Coaches screaming for a basket interference call when an opposing player barely touches the net and the ball goes through the hoop. By rule, they could be right...by practice I don't see it called a whole lot.

Sooooo,
if you can have a BI call on a player touching the net...(which dosen't seem to effect the shot much)
Whatta ya got if:
A1 shoots a lay-up, B1 trys to block the shot. In doing so, B1 slaps the backboard (not intentional) while the ball is on the ring or in the cyclinder. The vibration clearly causes the ball to rattle off the ring. No basket.

I know we have talked about this before. I believe we got nuthin' unless it is intentional...but it dosen't seem right when the vibration clearly effected the shot.

I would like to see a BI called here...instead of a Technical...T seems to harsh, BI seems justified.

Comments?

You gotta call the technical.

As for touching the mesh, one of my assignors told me that if they touch the mesh, let it go, unless it causes the ring to vibrate and the shot not to go in the basket. Advantage/Disadvantage.

Please read RULING and COMMENT for NFHS 2003-04 Casebook Play 10.3.5 SITUATION (a). You might be suprised that a technical foul is not the correct ruling for Rookie Dude's posted play at the beginning of this thread.

MTD,
Your Case book play states:
A1 tries for a goal, and (a)B1 jumps and attempts to block the shot but instead slaps the backboard and the ball goes into the basket; RULING: (a) legal and the basket counts.

I agree with this BUT,
What if B1 jumps and attempts to block the shot but instead slaps the backboard and the ball DOES NOT go into the basket as a result of the vibration?

Read the COMMENT: If the defensive player is making a legitmate attempt to block the shot, there is no infraction of the rules. The vibration of the backboard is ignored and if the attempt is no good play continues uninterupted.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Feb 15th, 2004 at 09:44 PM]

Yes, I read the comment...it says the "purpose of the rule is to penalize intentionalcontact with the backboard"...

I guess what I'm asking Mark... do you think it would be good to have a new BI rule for an opponent causing the ball not to enter the basket, because of the striking of the backboard unintentionally? (And keep the Technical for intentionally)

How hard would he have to hit the backboard?
 

It seems like your more likely to break a bone in your hand that cause the rin to vibrate enough to cause the ball miss an otherwise good shot.

How bout it Big Dogs...do you like this "non-call", when the ball was clearly going to go in the basket?

JR, JRut, mick, Dan, Chuck, rainmaker;)...

You will probably correctly say, "Call it by the Rules"...but do you have to like it?

You cannot call a BI for this. It does not fit the definition. All you can call is a T and that is what judgment is about. And no, I do not see BI as a good remedy for this.

Peace

Well, I'm not one of the "Big Dogs", but I'm gonna respond anyway...if I am reading this right, your complaint is the fact that B caused the backboard to shake, thus "causing" the shot to miss, and you think this should be BI. So by that reasoning, when A5 goes up for a thunderous dunk, misses and slams the ball into the rim, thus causing the rim to vibrate and bounce around, we would have to call Offensive BI??? That, of course, makes no sense, right? Neither does calling BI on a player who does not touch the ball or the ring while the ball is on the ring or in the imaginary cylinder yada. yada, yada...it's not BI...why worry about it?

I don't know about the hand breaking thing. BI seems like a reasonable solution. Too often, I believe, refs are watching the contact against the backboard and asking themselves, "does that deserve a technical?" Even if the contact is intentional, they pass if it is no big deal. i agree with that, but also believe that if there were a lesser penalty (BI) it would get called more.

This is the same as the elbow rule. Not enough refs called the exessive elbow swing. Now that this is a violation, I see it more. Not a ton, just more.

I think that to do it the way that you propose above would require waaaaay too much judgement on an official's part as to whether the slapping of the board actually did cause the ball to spin out or not. How do you know for sure that the ball wasn't gonna spin out anyway, without the slap? I just don't think that you can set up proper criteria for this call that will ever allow you to attain uniform judgement on it- especially by newer officials who are still trying to figure out which end of the whistle to blow. Not only would we have to judge in a split second whether the slap was intentional or not, at the same time we'd also have to judge the result of the slap too. The simpler the rules are to interpret and call, the better they are for all of us. Jmo.

Try this`
 

Get a step ladder if you're short like me and go to your local YMCA. Then start slapping the backboard as hard as you can. I think you will find two things: 1) your hand will hurt a lot; 2) the ring will not move significantly.

I had this exact situation just a few weeks ago. See http://www.officialforum.com/thread/12067 for what others said about it.

I no-called it, based on the fact that the defender was legitimately playing the ball.

You aren't on the "Big Dogs" list, but I'll let your answer stand in for mine, since BI isn't a big issue for me, working mostly girls.