Goaltending?

[actuary77]

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?

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Camron is 100% right.

Furthermore, none of these situations qualify as basket interference!

[RookieDude]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

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.

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

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.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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?

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)

[Jeff Sarratt]

nevadaref: is that a high school casebook?

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Always? Even by a defender on a free throw?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Always? Even by a defender on a free throw?

You are right.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Me being right?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Me being right?

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