this happens a lot on the higher levels, and a lot of officials call this basket interference or goal tending and just count the basket.... the correct call supposed to be a technical foul if the slap causes the ball to miss...is there a reason why some refs ignore this rule and call something that is not even possible by rule?????? Or is there a different rule at the college level(ncaa/naia) than in the high school level (nfhs)????

NCAA Rule is the same.
 

The rule is exactly the same at the college level.

I think you have some officials that buy into the myths of basketball and call things they have never read directly in the rulebook. You hear a lot of coaches and players wanting goaltending for this type of action. I think "lesser" officials fall into that trap.

Peace

Hey Jeff...Poland?

Just to keep things straight, whether the slap caused the ball to miss or not isn't really a factor in this call. The "T" is for a player INTENTIONALLY slapping the backboard or making the ring vibrate. If the defensive player tried to make a legitimate block in the ref's opinion, and he just missed the ball but still made the backboard vibrate with the miss, then there's no call even if the ball does happen to spin out of the basket.

I've been wondering for a few days. He changed it right after the debate. Maybe something was said in the debate about it. I don't know.

I know the Polish president isn't happy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005712

Just an opinion.
 

I've been wondering for a few days. He changed it right after the debate. Maybe something was said in the debate about it. I don't know. [/B][/QUOTE]

President Bush mentioned Poland in the debate as if this was an accomplishment to have them apart of the coalition of the bribed and minipulated. I just found it funny, considering that Poland's history and playing a part in this "war on terror."

It would be like a lottery winner to brag about how much money that have as compared to the Rockefellers. It is kind of a dumb and stupid comment if you ask me.

Peace

Re: Just an opinion.
 

President Bush mentioned Poland in the debate as if this was an accomplishment to have them apart of the coalition of the bribed and minipulated. I just found it funny, considering that Poland's history and playing a part in this "war on terror."

It would be like a lottery winner to brag about how much money that have as compared to the Rockefellers. It is kind of a dumb and stupid comment if you ask me.

Peace [/B][/QUOTE]

Polish troops have died.

You find this "funny"?

If so then you'll find this f'ing hilareous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/na...rint&position=

October 4, 2004
2 Clean Uniforms, Owners' Fates Unknown
By CHARLIE LeDUFF

OCEANSIDE, Calif. - There are two unclaimed military uniforms hanging in Jerry Alexander's dry cleaning shop on Tremont Street.

They are on the rack, side by side, in slots numbered 1781 and 1783. The first is tall and stout. The second is short and thin. Like Steinbeck's Lenny and George. Like a pair of cousins.

Number 1781 arrived at the shop, Dorothy's laundry, in December 2002. Number 1783 came in October 2002, just a few months before the men and women of the First Marine Expeditionary Force stationed at nearby Camp Pendleton shipped out for the Persian Gulf.

The uniforms have gone unclaimed since then, nearly two years, hanging like bones in an anatomy lecture. They will remain, Mr. Alexander said, until the Iraq conflict is over and all the marines come home.

"Even if it takes five years," he promised. "Even if it takes 10."

Mr. Alexander does not know what happened to the men to whom the uniforms belong. Perhaps they abandoned the clothing. That sometimes happens, though rarely. Perhaps they forgot to get their laundry before they shipped out, but what were the odds? Two uniforms in a row, with an empty space between. Numbers 1781 and 1783.

There is a third, more malignant possibility: a dead man cannot claim a clean shirt.

There are names on the yellowing tickets affixed to the plastic that covers the camouflage fatigues, but Mr. Alexander has not read them or checked them against the list of the killed or wounded. His curiosity does not work that way, he said. Nor will he divulge the names to a stranger; that would be a dereliction of decency.

The First Marine Expeditionary Force left in January 2003 and fought its way to Baghdad. When the Marines triumphantly returned, Mr. Alexander hung a banner on his shop: "Welcome Home, Job Well Done."

No one came, though, to claim numbers 1781 and 1783.

Last March, the Marines shipped out for a second tour. The body count began to rise - the number of dead Americans has passed 1,000 - and Mr. Alexander took the sign down.

In peaceful times, there are 35,000 marines stationed at Camp Pendleton. But more than half are now in Iraq and Kuwait. [As of Oct. 3, the Pentagon had confirmed the deaths of 149 of them.]

This community to the south of the base, with movie houses and taverns and dry cleaners, is all but empty, a ghost town, the Santa Ana winds blowing scraps and plastic bags through the alleys, the sounds of the pressing machine and the smell of solvents seeping out of the dry cleaning shop.

Mr. Alexander is a self-deprecating man. A self-described nobody. He is no armchair pundit, just a guy with a mustache and a small business in a military town. No one pays him for his opinion, but he has one. Take it or leave it.

"You can't say you support the troops but you don't support the mission," Mr. Alexander said in his cluttered office. "I don't think that it's possible. That just hurts the troops, what they're trying to do."

It is a false sentiment, he believes, created by people ashamed that in their youth they called soldiers serving in Vietnam "baby killers." Mr. Alexander remembers; he was cleaning uniforms back then.

But the uniforms hanging in his shop today, and the empty streets and the headlines and the casualty reports and the recollections of Vietnam, have had an effect. "I have doubts, everybody has doubts now," he said about the situation in Iraq. "It's gone on so long now. There's been a lot of casualties from Pendleton. We feel it here."

And so Mr. Alexander peruses the list of the dead in the local paper, hoping not to find the name of a friend who is a gunnery sergeant. He looks forward to the day his friend returns so they can go to a Padres game. He will buy the sergeant a beer and pat him on the shoulder and tell him thanks for the service.

And he hopes that two men will walk through his front door, one thick, one thin, each with $7 in hand and a claim receipt, for 1781 or 1783. Though the tickets say that all articles left over 30 days may be sold for charges, the uniforms will be waiting. He will tell the men thanks for the service. And no charge for the storage.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Oct 4th, 2004 at 07:48 PM]

Re: Re: Just an opinion.
 

War is never hilarious. But the fact that the President of the United States tried to use Poland as a barometer for how this war is going and the countries that support the United States was rather a joke. Sorry, but that is a really big joke to me.

I find it funny that people in the Sudan are dying every day, but we are not sending troops there. I wonder why? I guess people dying in Africa are not as important as protecting the interests of Israel. I guess it goes to show that this war was not about the killing of innocent people. Or was it about terror? Or was it about a stable Middle East (Sadam Hussein was stable).

Peace

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski (translated by Arthur Chrenkoff).

"It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience does not appreciate Polish sacrifice. . . . I don't think it's a question of ignorance. One thing has to be said very clearly: this Coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain and Australia, but there's also contribution of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who died in Iraq. It's immoral to not see this involvement we undertook because we believe that we have to fight terrorism together, that we need to show international solidarity, that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world.

"From such a perspective, you can say we are disappointed that our stance and the sacrifice of our soldiers is so marginalised. I blame it on electioneering--and a message, indirectly expressed by Senator Kerry--that he thinks more of a coalition that would put the United States together with France and Germany, that is those who in the matter of Iraq said 'no.'

"President Bush is behaving like a true Texan gentleman--he's fighting for the recognition of other countries' contribution in the Coalition."

Perhaps Kerry should make the argument that Iraq was better off with the stability of Saddam.

I guess Bush likes to flip flop too.
 

I thought we went to war because Iraq was a threat to the United States, not because he was good or bad for Iraq. Or is that a different position from the original reason we were given? Or was it for terrorism? Or was it for Weapons of Mass Destruction? Which excuse was it?

Peace

Lets put Kerry's comments in its proper context. Kerry was speaking about the initial "conquest" of Iraq when he spoke of only U.S. and British troops being involved (I think that there may have been some Australian troops involved also.) After "cessation" of hostilities other countries have sent troops to Iraq. Poland was one of these countries.

I have never fled from a good political discussion, but I think that this discussion should be moved to the General Forum.

MTD, Sr.

Opening and closing this thread.
 

It has been brought to my attention that some people thought that I had closed this thread. I am not sure who closed this thread but I did NOT close it. I just suggested that the political discussion portion of it would be better served in the General Forum. I would like to see it this thread continue its discussion on making contact with the the backboard.

MTD, Sr.

Re: I guess Bush likes to flip flop too.
 

Does it have to be just a single reason. I'm sure the decision to go to war had many facets and was not a simple decision. Those that try to require a single reason are only looking for a way to criticize those who were face with making a very difficult decision.

One of the above mentioned reasons alone is not be sufficent for choosing to go to war. Going to Iraq was the cumulative influence of all of the above. I'm sure that every conflict that the US has EVER been in had the USA's interest in mind in addition to all other possible issues.

Also, don't discount the fact that many people in power in Arab nations would really like to completely eliminate Israel. If Israel never struck again, they would continue to be attacked.

Re: Re: I guess Bush likes to flip flop too.
 

...which relates to slapping the backboard, how?

Just so everybody is clear on this aspect too, how loud or how hard the slap may be is not relevant to this call either. It's strictly a judgement call. If the calling official felt that the slap was a legitimate attempt to make a block, then it's always a legal play- no matter how hard the board is hit, how loud the slap is or whether the ball ends up spinning out or not. The "T" is for <b>intentionally</b> slapping the backboard when a shot is involved with the intent of drawing attention, venting frustration, etc. Any doubts, don't call it.

JR,
"The "T" is for intentionally slapping the backboard when a shot is involved with the intent of drawing attention, venting frustration, etc."

A "T" would also be applicable when a shot is not involved wouldn't it?

yes.

A "T" would be applicable on a non-shot only if you deemed the slap an "unsporting" act. Personally, if someone is whacking the board away from the play, I think that I might warn them first before "T"ing them.

According to the strict language of the pertinent NFHS rule- R10-3-5(b), the slap has to be on a shot(ball in flight,touching the board,in the basket or cylinder). Casebook play 10.3.5COMMENT says the same thing- i.e. a shot or try has to be involved.

Maybe. :D

Re: Opening and closing this thread.
 

You mean you voted for locking the thread before you voted against it? ;)

My favorite is the 2-hand dunk/chin-up/2-hand slap (one on each side of the rim). I had one of these last year in a juco game. Kid looked at like me like "Whaaaaaa...?"

Just to keep things straight, whether the slap caused the ball to miss or not isn't really a factor in this call. The "T" is for a player INTENTIONALLY slapping the backboard or making the ring vibrate. If the defensive player tried to make a legitimate block in the ref's opinion, and he just missed the ball but still made the backboard vibrate with the miss, then there's no call even if the ball does happen to spin out of the basket. [/B][/QUOTE]

How can you actually say if someone goes to block a shot and misses the ball and slaps the backboard and the ball is on the ring and after the slap the ball comes off the ring, how can you actually say the ball wasn't caused to come off by the slap???? you don't know for sure it was, but you don't know for sure it wasn't??? you can't take the chance that is was caused by the slap can you???? even though it wasn't intentional??? i know you can't give the kid the basket but even though it wasn't intentional can't you give the kid the "T" because he intentionally went to block the shot, but missed and hit the board, doesnt that mean he intentionally hit the board?? :)

[Edited by jritchie on Oct 7th, 2004 at 09:27 AM]

J, JR is correct of course. The technical foul is for "intentionally" slapping the backboard. If you think it was part of a play on the ball, then you don't call the T; even if the ball then bounces off the rim.

If you're saying that if the ball bounces off the rim, you are going to assume that the slap was intentional, I think that's probably not a good approach. JMO.

sooo what do you tell the screaming coach?
 

"sorry coach, the player was going for the ball and just missed it and slapped the backboard causing the ball to come off the rim, but since he was going for the shot i can't call goal tending or basket interference and can't give him a "T" either because it was an accident he hit the backboard and caused the ball to fall off the rim, i guess your just outta luck and 2 points less than you should be"

Re: sooo what do you tell the screaming coach?
 

It's much easier to say "Coach, what he did WAS LEGAL!"- which also happens to be the truth.

so it's legal...
 

to ACCIDENTALLY smack the backboard just hard enough to make it shake (you know how some of these goals are, really loose and shakey)and make a shot miss without any penalty! you just tell them it's part of the game or what??
sitch "two points down, last second layup by A1, B1 jumps up to block the shot, misses the ball and hits the board, causing the board to sway back on forth, therefore causing the ball to bounce of the rim and roll of the rim, Team B wins" NO CALL...GAME OVER wow, would hate to have to let that go!!! better have some good security, legally i guess there is nothing to call, but we should be able to do something...

if it's the rule, then it's the rule but that would be real hard to let it go and do nothing, especially if you were sure rim vibrated while ball was contacting. D-coach could put his best leapers/slappers in and have them swing at the ball. since most shooters are below 50%, i wonder what their percentages are when shooting at a vibrating rim.

Re: so it's legal...
 

As per the rules, that is a legal play. If, in the official's opinion, it is a legitimate attemp to block the shot, there is <b>never</b> a "T" involved. Whether you agree with it or not doesn't make it illegal. The purpose and intent of the rule isn't to penalize a legal, attempted defensive play.

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....

As Bob pointed out, case book play 10.3.5COMMENT states "The purpose of the rule is to penalize <font color = red>INTENTIONAL CONTACT WITH THE BACKBOARD</font> while a shot or try is involved....". The purpose and intent of this rule is to penalize the <font color = red>intentional</font> contact only, no matter what the result of that contact may be.