Slapping backboard

[Johnny Ringo]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

A play similar to this seems to happen to me every night.

If the defender is making a legitimate attempt - in the official's judgement - to block the shot ... play on. If not, it's a T.

The next part to this is always if the ball is IN the cylinder. You could have BI or again ... nothing and play on.

Am I correct veteran oficials?

You are correct, I got confused and always seem to when discussing this type of play. If the ball is in the cylinder and the slapping of the backboard causes the try to miss. It is a Tech and the try is no good. No BI. Only BI if the player hits rim or net, correct?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

Only BI if the player hits rim or net, correct?

It's BI if a player from either team hits the rim/net while the ball is on or within the basket or if they touch the ball while it is in the cone over the basket.

GT is hitting the ball on the way down above the basket ring when the shot has a chance to go in. GT also applies after the ball leaves a FT shooter's hands while it is still outside the cylinder, but it also only applies to an opponent of the FT shooter.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's BI if a player from either team hits the rim/net while the ball is on or within the basket or if they touch the ball while it is in the cone over the basket.

Is that the cone of verticality?

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Is that the cone of verticality?

You're up early this morning Juulie.....

Personally I like "the cone of silence" (from an old TV sitcom)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

You're up early this morning Juulie.....

Personally I like "the cone of silence" (from an old TV sitcom)

When it comes to wimmen, so do I......

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's BI if a player from either team hits the rim/net while the ball is on or within the basket or if they touch the ball while it is in the cone over the basket.

A cone needs to come to a point, so I don't think it applies to the BI rule. - Mr. Annoying Geometry Guy.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

A cone needs to come to a point, so I don't think it applies to the BI rule. - Mr. Annoying Geometry Guy.

Oh.....

I get the concept now.

A cylinder is like Dilbert's head.

A cone is like your head.

Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Dexter. I just nominated you for Teacher of the Year.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

A cone needs to come to a point, so I don't think it applies to the BI rule. - Mr. Annoying Geometry Guy.

Well, if you consider points at infinity in projective geometry , a cylinder may be considered as a cone. But an exposition of projective geometry in three-dimensional space seems a bit off-topic here, doesn't it?

Ciao

Two parallel straight lines intersect at a point at infinity, when they don't care any more.

[refnrev]

[QUOTE=eg-italy]Well, if you consider points at infinity in projective geometry , a cylinder may be considered as a cone. But an exposition of projective geometry in three-dimensional space seems a bit off-topic here, doesn't it?

Ciao

____________________________________

We don't know if it's off topic or not because most of us don't have the foggiest idea what you just said! But somehow we just inherently know it has nothing whatsoever to do with slapping a dad gum backboard!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by refnrev

We don't know if it's off topic or not because most of us don't have the foggiest idea what you just said! But somehow we just inherently know it has nothing whatsoever to do with slapping a dad gum backboard!

It must have been in Italian.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by refnrev

We don't know if it's off topic or not because most of us don't have the foggiest idea what you just said! But somehow we just inherently know it has nothing whatsoever to do with slapping a dad gum backboard!

Really you don't know about projective geometry? If so, I'm sorry: it was only to justify Jurassic for his "cone-cylinder" confusion. Maybe it was for the reason they couldn't distinguish between a cone and a cylinder that FIBA decided to delete the cylinder above basket concept from their rules.

To return on topic, and add to confusion, with FIBA rules it is BI to touch the backboard, but only when the ball is in contact with the ring. Slapping the backboard can be BI, if in the official's judgment this influences the result of the shot (no T, no provision for a legitimate attempt to block the shot).

Ciao

[BktBallRef]

FEEBLE has a lot more problems that just not knowing the difference in a cone and a cylinder.

You can swat the ball off the rim but you can't slap the backboard while the ball is on the rim...yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

If the ball is in the cylinder and the slapping of the backboard causes the try to miss. It is a Tech and the try is no good.

Got a rule reference on that one?

[refnrev]

Good responses. In the game I watched all three whistles remained silent. I've worked with these guys and watched them for years. These were three GOOD guys. I didn't get to talk to them after the game so I can only surmise that either they felt it was a bad but legitimate attempt to block or that the slap, which wasn't very hard didntt shake the basket or have an impact upon the shot. My instinct tells me #1.

[Adam]

The impact on the shot shouldn't matter, by rule. If the slap is a legimate attempt at a block, it's not a tech no matter what the shot does. If the shot is not a legitimate block attempt, it is a tech no matter what the shot does.