Chris, can you cite me a rule that you could call on the defense on this play? You have to let it go because it is not illegal as long as the official judges that the defender is trying to make a legitimate block. Simple as that.

that is what i'm trying to get at???
 

what can you possibly call that would even this play out?? it seems like the rules would change to say that if a player shakes the basket enough to make the ball miss, we should be able to call basket interference and award two points, since it's not intentional which would be a "t"...but i guess we'll live with the " NO CALL" for now.. :)

I'm not arguing you're wrong, I'm simply saying that I don't like it. Those are the rules-sorry coach.

It is called judgment.
 

If you feel they did it on purpose, then you have a T. But when you work a lot of kids that play above the rim, it is really easy to see the difference. I really do not care what percentages might be because the rim is vibrating or not. That should not be your issue. The issue should was the block attempt legitimate or not. Now you can be overly officious and make a call every time, but I do not think you will win many fans with the coaches if you give them a T for this often. That is of course if you are really concerned as to what the coaches think in the first place. ;)

(This will only take a few seconds) :D

BTW I was asked a question about my signature and I answered it. No hard feelings or not much different than any other post. It is nothing like a thread that talked about baseball for the entire spring, summer and now fall that had nothing to do with basketball. I guess when your team has not won a World Series in almost 100 years you are allowed to talk baseball all year long. :rolleyes:

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Oct 7th, 2004 at 12:47 PM]

Re: that is what i'm trying to get at???
 

How can you be 100% sure that the slap actually did make the ball spin out- i.e. it wasn't gonna spin out anyway? And what does "evening out" have to do with anything? It's never, ever our job to even anything out. We just call what happens, and use the applicable rule(s) to do so. It's not a matter of having to live with anything; it's a matter of making the correct call- which happens to be a "no call" on a legitimate block attempt.

i agree, but
 

i think the rule should be looked at a little more and take care of these situations, so us referees aren't put in that position, that is all i'm saying...i agree totally about what the rule says...i just don't like to call it that way...but will until it changes

Anything is possible.
 

It is likely you will have to live with it. I do not see this rule changing anytime soon. But stranger things have happen.

Peace

If this were a serious problem, NF would have dealt with it because the coaches would be up in arms. If you have people playing at or above rime level stuff happens and not all of it is illegal. So a few balls that might be affected by a rattling back board so what?

If you ply on a court with hydra-port standards and someone runs into it and causes vibration, should that be a something?

Dang the center twists his ankle on a fast break and holds up. Guess we need to even it out by stopping the clock, and letting a sub come in and then...

Why do we let people slide across the floor after diving after the ball, (the legal type)? It;s just not fair?

It's not fair that the defense has both low blocks on a FT.

Two players going after ball collide with no advantage, must be a double foul to protect the kids.

Its not fair player can save ball out of bounds and then come back after it. It needs to touch someone else?

The rules are rules! They are there and what's agreed upon if something happens and it hurts one team or another not my fault. Somone will change them but I am not going to make something up just cause it might be fair

Wow - we got a topic back on track!

I'm proud of you guys!

the rule says
 

10.3.5b while a try is in flight etc...slap or strike the backboard intentionally OR STRIKE THE BACKBOARD OR CAUSE IT TO VIBRATE....TECHNICAL FOUL... so if you miss the ball and cause it to shake you got a "T" no question... no matter if all 10 can play above the rim

Re: the rule says
 

By changing the wording, you change the meaning. Rule 10.3.5b actually states: "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, intentionally slap or strike the backboard or cause the ring to vibrate." You have to intentionally slap or strike. When I go up for the block, my intention is to block the shot, not strike the backboard to cause it to vibrate.

Re: Re: the rule says
 

By leaving the wording exactly as it is, there are two competely valid ways to read the sentence. I've attempted to illistrate the two possible breakdowns of the sentence.

A player shall not<ul>
<li>While<ul>
<li>a try or tap is in flight</li>
<li>or is touching the backboard</li>
<li>or is in the basket</li>
<li>or in the cylinder above the basket</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>intentionally<ul>
<li>slap or strike the backboard</li>
<li>or cause the ring to vibrate.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>A player shall not<ul>
<li>While<ul>
<li>a try or tap is in flight</li>
<li>or is touching the backboard</li>
<li>or is in the basket</li>
<li>or in the cylinder above the basket</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>intentionally slap or strike the backboard</li>
<li>or cause the ring to vibrate.</li>
</ul>
As you can see, the adverb "intentionally" may be attached to one or both of the parts of the compound verb. I do beleive the accepted application is to apply it to both parts.

In an older version of the rule:<ul>
<li>A player shall not<ul>
<li>Slap or strike either backboard</li>
<li>or cause either ring to vibrate</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>While<ul>
<li>the ball is in flight during a try or tap</li>
<li>or is touching the backboard</li>
<li>or is on or in the basket</li>
<li>or in the cylinder above the basket. </li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

i agree
 

can be taken two ways and should be illustrated to which way they want us to take it....that was my point of the rule though, it can be taken the other way as to say that "intentional" doesn't apply to the "making the ring vibrate part" and that is how i was reading it!!! Thanks for the discussion on the topic

Re: i agree
 

It is "illustrated to which way they want us to take it" -- that's the purpose of 10.3.5

it still could be taken 2 ways....does intentional go with cause ring to vibrate or not???? not arguing, just saying it could be taken that way....