|
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 |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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 |
It is BI in FIBA. Look at that, FIBA actulally has good rules.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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 |
Quote:
|
Shaken ... not stirred
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.:eek: The correct answer (per NFHS rule) is, as several have said, no T on a legitimate shot block attempt and absolutely not basket interference. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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...." |
Quote:
it prob should be, but by rule, it isn't. |
Quote:
NFHS Rule 10-3-5(b) states <i>"A player shall not illegally contact the backboard/ring by <b>INTENTIONALLY</b> 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"</i> Casebook play 10.3.5(b) <b>COMMENT:</b> <i>The purpose of the rule is to penalize <b>INTENTIONAL</b> contact with the backboard while a shot or try is involved..."</i>." 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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're missing the point. You have absolutely <b>NO</b> rules justification to call a technical foul on a player who rattles the backboard while trying to make a legitimate block. It's legal for that player to hit it as hard as he can if he's going for the ball. All you are doing is making up your own rule again because you don't like the rule that we have(that is, if you actually knew the correct rule in the first place....which I kinda doubt). If you have an evaluator at one of your college games, you will never get away with trying to bullsh!t him on that one. Never! You'll never get away with that in higher level varsity games either, where the kids play above the rim. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Famous quote:
(paraphrased) An official must be careful not to, in his own mind, become bigger than the game that he is there to officiate.
.....or something like that. For some reason this came to mind. Or, in laymen terms: I'm running this game. If the rules are kinda parallel to the way I run it, good. If not, they (everyone else, coaches, players, even partners) will adapt. |
The rules and supporting case information are crystal clear. Slapping of the backboard by a defender as part of a legitimate block attempt is not a T.
Running around making up interpretations contrary to the rules, based on what you think might or might not happen, is wrong, and IMHO, unprofessional. How can we expect the participants to conform to the rules if we ourselves choose selectively not to? Some example that sets...... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28pm. |