Backboard slap
 

In a j.v. basketball game, we had a fast break lay up, defensive player from behind slaps backboard trying to block shot. Ball does not go in. I make no call. The officials for the Varsity contest were watching the play and question why I didn't call a technical foul, or at the least, basket interference. I advised player was trying to block shot, not just slap the backboard, therefore, no technical. One of the officials insisted you have to call a technical if it affects the outcome of the shot. I disagree. He then asks why I didn't call basket interference. Even though the backboard was shaking (slightly), my understanding is that you cannot have basket interference from just slapping the backboard.

Dont have the rule book with me, but off the top of my head I think it is interferance. If the shaking of the board affected the ball in any way it would be interferance. Not sure about the T, but im still a learning noob. :eek:

Well lessee...

4-6 Basket Interference
Art 1....didn't do that
Art 2....didn't do that either
Art 3....nope, still good
Art 4....didn't do that.

Not BI

Take another look at 4-6. Only pulling down the ring is the BI (from an NCAA game a few years back). Hitting the backboard is never BI/Goaltending.

In order to call the T, it needs to either give the player an advantage, or the player needs to intentionally contact the backboard. From the sound of it, this contact was just following through on a block, therefore no T. (10.3.5 covers this)

Good no call! Play on!

Play on, going the other way. As long as he made a play for the ball.

Too many people think this and call BI. It seems like an easy way out, but there is no rule to back this up. Others have noted this and it burns me up!

I agree with the no call here.

Last night I was watching the JV game before my game...A1 was going in for a lay up from the table side of the basket, B1 runs up and slaps the backboard on the other side of the basket and clearly (at least from my vantage point) caused it to shake. The official passed...I would have T'd that as it is hard to say he was making a play on the ball when he was on the other side of the bucket and his hand was never closer that 3 feet from the ball.

I agree with the NO CALL as well. Great job! If the defensive player is making a VALID attempt to block the shot, then play on. However, in the situation LarryS describes, that one gets rung up ALL night LONG. (Someone chime in with a little Lionel Ritchie . . . please!) :D

I agree completely!

He wanted a technical foul and/or basket interference??

Dan listed the no-BI call reasons.

And it's not a T because they're not meeting the intent part of 10-3-5. If they're not intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or intentionally 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, then no techincal foul.

It's nothing even though it probably should be something. But that's another discussion.

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

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.

That i can completely agree with. exspecially being some what new i get many asignments in older gyms where it does not take a whole lot of pressure to get one of the old long extended supports rocking. :D