Goaltending?
 

Which of the following (if any) are goaltending situations?

(a) A1 makes a shot. The ball is in its downward motion (but not yet hit the rim) and B1 taps the backboard.

(b) A1 makes a shot. The ball has hit the rim and has not entered the basket, but there is a legitimate chance that it will. B1 taps the backboard.

(c) Same as situation (a) but A2 is the one that hits the backboard.

(d) Same as situation (b) but A2 is the one that hits the backboard.

Note that in all the above situations, neither the ring or net was touched.

Is the call clear cut or is it a judgement situation on whether the tap was hard enough to maybe move the backboard and alter the shot?

None of these are goaltending....no judgement required. Goaltending always involves touching the ball on its downward flight and before it enters the cylinder.

Contacting the backboard is either a technical foul or it is nothing.

Camron is 100% right.

Furthermore, none of these situations qualify as basket interference!

actuary77...
Here is Case book play 10.3.5 SITUATION:
A1 tries for a goal, and (a) B1 jumps and attempts to block the shot but instead slaps or strikes the backboard and the ball goes into the basket; or (b) B1 vibrates the ring as a result of pulling on the net and the ball does not enter the basket. RULING In (a) legal and the basket counts; and (b) a technical foul is charged to B1 and there is no basket.
COMMENT: The purpose of the rule is to penalize intentional contact with the backboard while a shot or try is involved or placing a hand on the backboard to gain an advantage. A player who strikes either backboard so frocefully it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration may be assessed a technical foul pursuant to Rule 10-3-7.

This may help you understand the "slapping the backboard" situations you may run into from time to time.

Always?:confused: Even by a defender on a free throw?

I see that this is a direct quote from the book, so I'm not arguing about the authenticity of this ruling. But I'm interested in how the decision is made to charge a T as opposed to BI in item (b). And why is this case play in that section when it doesn't appear to involve the backboard?

(b) is badly written. It should show some reference to where the ball is when the player pulls on the net(as being not on or inside the ring), as well as the reason for pulling on the net.

Think case book play 10.3.4SitB(b) without the possibility of injury.

Right. If the ball is on the ring when the net is pulled, then it's a T and BI. Unless the player grasped the net to prevent injury. Then it's just BI. Unless the ball actually wasn't on the ring. Then it's nothing.

Make more sense now? :D

A question about the T for pulling on the net. Why?

Grasping the basket. FED 10-3-4. NCAA 10-3-13.

Hi chuck,

I agree. But it would have to be intentional, excessive and emphatic. Which is not the case most times.

On what citation are you basing your interpretation, Jeff?

Jeff, neither rule set says "intentional". FED rules do not include the language about "excessive and emphatic". Any grasping that is not done to prevent injury is a T in high school.

The college rule does say that it's a T for grasping the basket in an excessive or emphatic manner. However, it could pretty easily be argued that any grasping beyond preventing injury is excessive. There's no reason at all to grasp the basket while dunking, except to show off or prevent injury.

It is, of course, possible to contact the basket and even move it without grasping. But grasping, especially the net, seems pretty obviously intentional to me.

10 3 13

The rule implies intent. Because a player get his hand tangled in the net during play which may in fact be a BI, usually does not warrent a T. If am official called a T is this situation, he or she would certainly be giving another with in a matter of seconds.

The vocabulary emphatic implies "purpose."

Common sense is necessary.

However, if a player flies by and grabs the net and swings around - that is a T.

Hi Chuck,

Understood. I was referring to "pulled." the net can be accidently pulled.

As I sort of hinted at above, it's hard for me imagine accidently pulling the net.

You are right.

But, as you know, that has probably never happened and never will.

Me being right?

That's not what I meant but if you insist!!! :D

:D <i></i>

In Fed rules, it certainly may be accidentally pulled. However, unless it's done to prevent and injury, it's still grasping the basket and a T. How the official may realize it's accidental and choose to pass on this call. But there is nothing in the rules that makes this okay.

Juulie,
Good questions.
1. The case play is in the section on technical fouls because that is the only possible penalty for slapping the backboard.
2. There is not enough information given in part (b). We are not told what the ball did following B1 vibrating the ring. Did it hit it? We are only told that the ball did not enter the goal. The play may or may not constitute basket interference. Here is a better case play to explain the BI part.

9.11.4 SITUATION: Defender B4 attempts to stop an apparent lob pass. While B4 is airborne, A3 moves beneath B4. To avoid injury, B4 grasps the basket ring. While B4 grasps the ring, A1 shoots from about 12 feet away. Just after A1 releases the shot, B4 lets go of the ring and lands safely. The ring is still moving when (a) the ball hits the moving ring and bounces out; (b) the ball, despite the moving ring, enters and passes completely through the basket; or (c) the ring stops vibrating (returns to its normal position) and the ball bounces off the ring. RULING: Since B4 grasped the ring to prevent injury, no technical foul is called. However, the basket interference rule applies. In (a), basket interference is called on B4 because the ball struck a still-vibrating ring. Award A1 two points. In (b), since the ball entered and passed completely through the basket, basket interference is not called. Play continues. In (c), because the ring returned to its original position before the ball struck the ring, basket interference is not called. Play continues. (4-6-4; 10-3-5 Exception)

nevadaref: is that a high school casebook?

At the higher levels, that is not going to be a T.

In general on this board, we talk in high school terms, unless we specifically state otherwise. So in high school, it has to be a T, period. there's no leeway given in the rule book. I have no clue what the college rule is on either the men's or the women's side.

Both case plays that are in my last post are from the NFHS Case Book. Those are the official high school rules.

What exactly are you saying is not going to be a T at the NCAA or NBA level -- slapping the backboard or grasping the ring when NOT preventing an injury?

As far as I know, both are Ts by the book. If I'm not correct about that one of our NCAA guys will come along shortly and post the proper ruling.

I certainly acknowledge that you may well see officials pass on making these calls due to their supervisor's instructions. Perhaps that's what you meant.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for allowing me to participate in the dialog. I think we are all on the same page. Slap the backboard when you are not playing the ball is a T. Grasping the rim other than to prevent injury - a T. My only comment was about the net. When several 6' 6" and up players are are around the rim their hands get tangled in the net and can and have displaced the rim. It doesn't happen often, but it does occur. it is only a BI. A T is given and not asked for by rule.

Have a great day.

I agree, and my point earlier was that it's not a T b/c the net is not grasped in that case. Tangled does not equal grasped. The T is not for moving the basket. The T is for grasping, which cannot be done accidentally, IMO.