Backboard slap

[Jay R]

It is BI in FIBA. Look at that, FIBA actulally has good rules.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by j51969

I think the NF needs to help on this. This comes up every year, even if it doesn't happen that often. I think it is entirely reasonable that a player going for the block can still effect the outcome of the shot. If you look hard enough in the rule book you can find something to justify just about anything. A B.I. isn't the call right now. But I don't see how you could argue that call in a situation where the official clearly see it effect the outcome of the shot. In the spirit of fair play it would be nice if this was addressed in the future.

Please don't make up your own rules. The NFHS has made it clear how they want this called. Just follow what they say.

CONTACTING THE BACKBOARD
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 forcefully 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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by jcarter

Im thinking we need a little more information to determine that 4-6 Art 1 didnt happen. 4-6 Art 1 Basket interference occurs when a player touches the ball or any part of the basket ( including the net ) while the ball is on or within either basket.

JMO

Look at the language of 1-11. The basket and basket ring are separate objects from the backboard and supports.

Basket interference has nothing, directly, to do with the backboard, which, relative to the way 1-11 defines these objects, makes perfect sense. It's not "backboard" interference for a reason.

[sj]

I don't believe that he's making up a rule. I think he is just saying maybe a rule change should be considered. I'd agree that it should be discussed too. But until then it's nothing.

Respectfully

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by jodibuck

... The officials for the Varsity contest were watching the play and question why I didn't call a technical foul...One of the officials insisted you have to ... .

This is a sore point with me..Vets who don't know the correct application of a rule trying to correct newer officials. Good for you for getting it right. Shame on the goofy vets for pestering you. Not to say I don't appreciate feedback, but if you're not sure ya know the rule...zip it!

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Someone mentioned that is surely affects the outcome of the shot.

Perhaps. The rim may move back and forth an inch or so but not much.

Occasionally, though, I think you could be right... a shot that would have missed suddenly becomes made because the basket moved underneath the ball.

The correct answer (per NFHS rule) is, as several have said, no T on a legitimate shot block attempt and absolutely not basket interference.

[btaylor64]

Personally If I rule this to be a legitimate attempt at a block and I am 100% sure that the hit of the backboard caused the board to shake hard enough that it caused the missed shot I'm whacking the kid as it is not BI and cannot be BI.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Personally If I rule this to be a legitimate attempt at a block and I am 100% sure that the hit of the backboard caused the board to shake hard enough that it caused the missed shot I'm whacking the kid as it is not BI and cannot be BI.

What rules backing do you have to call a technical foul on this play?

You're completely wrong by rule. You're also making up your own rules again. And again, that's ridiculous.

Btw, NCAA rules are the same as high school. It isn't a technical in either ruleset. Ever!

You know, for someone who claims to work college and pro games, you seem to lack a basic understanding of some very simple rules. JMO.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What rules backing do you have to call a technical foul on this play?

You're completely wrong by rule. You're also making up your own rules again. And again, that's ridiculous.

Btw, NCAA rules are the same as high school. It isn't a technical in either ruleset. Ever!

You know, for someone who claims to work college and pro games, you seem to lack a basic understanding of some very simple rules. JMO.

So it is within the spirit and intent of the rule to let this kid legitimately attempt a block, but in doing so shaking the backboard so violently that it causes the kid to miss the attempt that would have otherwise went in?

You seem to lack a basic understanding of spirit and intent of the rules. JMO though.

I guess by being so predicated on the rules and their exact meaning that you have never had a problem with a coach.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

So it is within the spirit and intent of the rule to let this kid legitimately attempt a block, but in doing so shaking the backboard so violently that it causes the kid to miss the attempt that would have otherwise went in?

You seem to lack a basic understanding of spirit and intent of the rules. JMO though.

I guess by being so predicated on the rules and their exact meaning that you have never had a problem with a coach.

Please tell me you're not advocating making up your own rules and handing out T's just to keep a coach off your butt.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

So it is within the spirit and intent of the rule to let this kid legitimately attempt a block, but in doing so shaking the backboard so violently that it causes the kid to miss the attempt that would have otherwise went in?

You seem to lack a basic understanding of spirit and intent of the rules. JMO though.

I guess by being so predicated on the rules and their exact meaning that you have never had a problem with a coach.

Is it within the spirit and intent of the rule? NO, IT IS THE FREAKING RULE!!!!!

Do you own a rule book? If so, please read NFHS rule 10-3-5(b) and case book play 10.3.5. If you like, I'll look up the NCAA citations that also say that you're completely wrong.

That's an awfully basic rule not to know- at the NFHS and NCAA levels.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Is it within the spirit and intent of the rule? NO, IT IS THE FREAKING RULE!!!!!

Do you own a rule book? If so, please read NFHS rule 10-3-5(b) and case book play 10.3.5. If you like, I'll look up the NCAA citations that also say that you're completely wrong.

That's an awfully basic rule not to know- at the NFHS and NCAA levels.

I don't see what your trying to say. In the casebook play in the comment part it says if the hit to the backboard is so forceful that it cannot be ignored. How does this make me wrong?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I don't see what your trying to say. In the casebook play in the comment part it says if the hit to the backboard is so forceful that it cannot be ignored. How does this make me wrong?

Read the entire comment section, "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 forcefully 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.

It slaps meant to draw attention to the player or meant to vent frustration may be called a technical foul. This absolutely rules out the slap that is a legitimate attempt to block the shot. By rule, no T here. Again, "The purpose of the rule is to penalize intentional contact...."

[Official99]

Originally Posted by jcarter

Im thinking we need a little more information to determine that 4-6 Art 1 didnt happen. 4-6 Art 1 Basket interference occurs when a player touches the ball or any part of the basket ( including the net ) while the ball is on or within either basket.

JMO

the backboard is not part of the basket.... there for it can't be BI.

it prob should be, but by rule, it isn't.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I don't see what your trying to say. In the casebook play in the comment part it says if the hit to the backboard is so forceful that it cannot be ignored. How does this make me wrong?

Your statement above verbatim was "Personally If I ruled this AS A LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO MAKE A BLOCK and I am 100% sure that the hit of the backboard caused the board to shake hard enough that it caused the missed shot, I'm whacking the kid...."

NFHS Rule 10-3-5(b) states "A player shall not illegally contact the backboard/ring by INTENTIONALLY slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate 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"

Casebook play 10.3.5(b)
COMMENT: The purpose of the rule is to penalize INTENTIONAL contact with the backboard while a shot or try is involved..."."

NCAA rules are exactly the same. I believe that pro rules are too, but I may be wrong.

Again, that's a very basic rule that you're misinterpreting. As I said before, if you call that in one of your college games, it might just be your last one if an evaluator is watching.