Basket Interference Problem

[lukealex]

I'm having trouble explaining the BI rule to two fellow officials. The situation is A1 goes for a layup, B1 tries to block, misses the ball but shakes the backboard enough to effect the shot. This is a T by 10-3-5 (a or b) but not BI. Case 10.3.5 is close, but not exact.

They aren't getting the point of BI needing to include the basket, but the backboard and basket are not the same (by rule). Any suggestions on explanation of this rule?

[rainmaker]

Sounds to me like you explained it pretty well, and it's their problem not yours. "What is it about 'no' that you don't understand?"

Tell them they can either apply to work for Billy Packer or quit listening to him, one or the other.

How hard could it could be to say, "BI doesn't include the backboard. Period." Well, it's not hard, and you're doing fine. Ask them why it's so darn hard to understand.

[Sirrefalot]

I have nothing, not Bbasket interferance nor a tee (as long as he was trying to block the shot)

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Sirrefalot

I have nothing, not Bbasket interferance nor a tee (as long as he was trying to block the shot)

On the play described, I may or may not agree depending on the situation. But the question has to do with an explanation of why it's not BI. Any suggestions?

[Raymond]

It is clearly spelled out in the rule book. This is not BI, nor is it a 'T' since it was a legitimate attempt to block a shot.

If luke wants to explain BI to his partners then he needs to come up with an entirely different scenario.

[lukealex]

Originally Posted by Sirrefalot

I have nothing, not Bbasket interferance nor a tee (as long as he was trying to block the shot)

Using 10-3-5 (a or b), a T is warranted. Striking the backboard to gain an advantage. If the striking of the backboard rattles the whole structure (including the basket) the movement could cause the shot to be missed.

I'm not worrying about explaining BI in its entirety, just only in this situation.

Originally Posted by lukealex

Using 10-3-5 (a or b), a T is warranted. Striking the backboard to gain an advantage. If the striking of the backboard rattles the whole structure (including the basket) the movement could cause the shot to be missed.

I'm not worrying about explaining BI in its entirety, just only in this situation.

A player shall not place a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage(10-3-5a), or while a try or tap is in flight, intentionally slap or strike the backboard or cause the ring to vibrate(10-3-5b)

I don't think 10-3-5a necessarily applies here. I tend to infer that this is in place to prevent a player from pushing off the backboard or ring to gain an advantage in position. (Only a possible scenario, JMO). What you are using to justify the call under 10-3-5a is specifically addressed, and allowed, by 10-3-5b.
The key word in 10-3-5b is intentionally. This is a most likely going to be a judgement call by the official if he was playing the ball, and not an automatic T because of the contact.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by lukealex

Using 10-3-5 (a or b), a T is warranted. Striking the backboard to gain an advantage. If the striking of the backboard rattles the whole structure (including the basket) the movement could cause the shot to be missed.

No, it is NOT warranted and it is NOT a technical foul if the defender rattles the board while legitimately trying to block a shot. Ever! How hard the board is hit, whether the board shakes or what the shot does after the board is hit are not relevant in any way, rules-wise. The only judgement on the play is whether the defender was legitimately trying to block the shot. If so---->no call.

See case book play 10.3.5.

[armymanjones]

If it's a legit try for the block and the player unintentionally slaps the backboard it's a no call. Just because it looks like a duck and quacks like aduck doesn't always mean you have to call it a duck....is that a bad comparison?

[Sirrefalot]

Originally Posted by lukealex

I'm having trouble explaining the BI rule to two fellow officials. The situation is A1 goes for a layup, B1 tries to block, misses the ball but shakes the backboard enough to effect the shot. This is a T by 10-3-5 (a or b) but not BI. Case 10.3.5 is close, but not exact.

They aren't getting the point of BI needing to include the basket, but the backboard and basket are not the same (by rule). Any suggestions on explanation of this rule?

I wouldn't have BI, period. Only way I would have a tee would be a timing issue. If it is a bang bang play where b1 is legit on his attempt to block the shot I would have nothing. If a1 lays it up and it is hanging on the rim and b1 then comes through and slaps the back board i may have a tee, otherwise nothing...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by lukealex

I'm having trouble explaining the BI rule to two fellow officials. The situation is A1 goes for a layup, B1 tries to block, misses the ball but shakes the backboard enough to effect the shot. This is a T by 10-3-5 (a or b) but not BI. Case 10.3.5 is close, but not exact.

They aren't getting the point of BI needing to include the basket, but the backboard and basket are not the same (by rule). Any suggestions on explanation of this rule?

Before you can explain the rule properly, Luke, you have to understand it. Your whole premise is completely wrong. If B1 tried to block the shot, it is NEVER a technical foul. You can also never have a BI call unless B1 touched the ring, net or the ball in the cylinder. Touching the backboard is never a part of BI.

[lukealex]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Before you can explain the rule properly, Luke, you have to understand it. Your whole premise is completely wrong. If B1 tried to block the shot, it is NEVER a technical foul. You can also never have a BI call unless B1 touched the ring, net or the ball in the cylinder. Touching the backboard is never a part of BI.

I do know the rule and after reading my OP again I realize it doesn't look like I do. I meant it could be a T, I was more looking for advice on explaining the rule to someone who didn't understand the application of the situation. You also don't have to refer me to case 10.3.5 since I mentioned it in my OP.

[btaylor64]

LukeAlex you have no chance of winning this battle. RUN AWAY! I tried to fight this one a little while back, but could not pierce the hard headed armour. Most everybody on here, myself NOT included, will tell you that since it is considered a legitimate attempt at a block that it can't be BI nor a T, no matter how hard the kid shook the backboard. I say even though you thought it was legit attempt at a block and you also thought the basket had a possibility of going in had the backboard and rim not gotten shaken to high hell, that you give the kid the T, and just tell everyone you thought he slapped it intentionally. No one would ever know what you thought. The only thing they could say is they thought he was making a legit block attempt, and in that case who cares what they think. You JUDGED the play like refs are supposed to do and in your judgement he "intentionally" slapped the backboard and are thereby supported by rule. That's just me though.

[Adam]

[lukealex]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

LukeAlex you have no chance of winning this battle. RUN AWAY! I tried to fight this one a little while back, but could not pierce the hard headed armour. Most everybody on here, myself NOT included, will tell you that since it is considered a legitimate attempt at a block that it can't be BI nor a T, no matter how hard the kid shook the backboard. I say even though you thought it was legit attempt at a block and you also thought the basket had a possibility of going in had the backboard and rim not gotten shaken to high hell, that you give the kid the T, and just tell everyone you thought he slapped it intentionally. No one would ever know what you thought. The only thing they could say is they thought he was making a legit block attempt, and in that case who cares what they think. You JUDGED the play like refs are supposed to do and in your judgement he "intentionally" slapped the backboard and are thereby supported by rule. That's just me though.

I do agree with the argument, if a block is attempted, no call. I worded my OP wrong, simple. The slap has to be intentional, also simple.