|
Mon Jan 24, 2000, 01:13am
|
|||
|
|||
Yesterday, a coach and several parents approached me about the slapping the backboard rule. First of all they wanted goaltending and not a technical but I explained that if anything was to be called it would have to be a technical since this is not covered in the BI or Goaltending rule. So here is what happened according to the "witnesses" Player A1 goes up for a layup and B1 in trying to block the shot, gets a peice of the ball and then hits the backboard. The backboard is "flimsey" so it shakes like crazy from the slap. The official calls a T. Should this have been passed on or not?
|
|
Mon Jan 24, 2000, 01:26am
|
|||
|
|||
This has come up before. You are correct in reference to the goaltending and basket interference rules as striking the backboard is not part of either rule.
The purpose of rule 10-3-6 is to penalize intentional or deliberate contact with the backboard. This rule has a case play, 10.3.6. on page 70 of the case book. Make certain that you also read the 'COMMENT' on page 71 as well. KDM
|
|
Mon Jan 24, 2000, 01:26am
|
|||
|
|||
Should have passed on it. Unless the player has, in the official's judgment, hit or slapped the backboard on purpose (tough decision to go with if he clearly tried to block the shot), it's bad luck that the supports are so flimsy but it should not be a "T" in my view. The "result" of hitting the backboard is irrelevant in that situation--it's the act itself that has to be judged for its intent and how it transpired.
|
|
Mon Jan 24, 2000, 06:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: A T is appropriate. You said "it shakes like crazy from the slap." It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. Rule 10-3-6 says it is a T if the player causes the ring to vibrate while the ball is in flight (among other cases). Many will say no T because it is not deliberate and they would be generally correct if it were simply contact on the board secondary to the block attempt. But, this case is different. The backboard shook "like crazy".
|
|
Mon Jan 24, 2000, 08:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Camron, Camron, Camron! Where have you been buddy? I'm still doing some games at The Hoop and haven't seen you for a while. As to your comment, I really don't understand how you can say this. It's not the players fault if the equipment sucks. The rule book and case book are incredibly specific on not calling this if it wasn't intentional - period. Knowing you, you must have some deep, insightful interpretation to counter this arguement. Please enlighten us.  [This message has been edited by Mark Padgett (edited January 24, 2000).]
|
|
Mon Jan 24, 2000, 11:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Also remember that the ball was touched during his attempt at a block (I believe that he did block the ball if he touched it).
The intent also has to be there. Now, this year in NCAA we have the new "Mr. Good-Knight" rule, whereby if a player grabs the ring during a shot and the ring bounces back to contact the ball, it is called basket interference. (Sorry, but I couldn't help but to take a shot at my 'least' favorite coach).
|
|
Tue Jan 25, 2000, 10:43am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Good point--If he got a piece of the ball, it's a non-issue about making the backboard shake like crazy. But even if he didn't touch the ball and only "almost" got it, still legal.
|
|
Tue Jan 25, 2000, 05:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: I base my statement on the case book 10.3.6 Comment: "Contact which occurs incidentally in playing the game is allowed, but when slapping or striking is intentional or is so forceful it cannot be ignored, a technical foul must be charged." [Emphasis mine] The clause I highlighted clearly says that highly forceful contact, without regard to intent, is to be a T. If the contact is such that the board is flopping all around, then it has to be called. I do agree that the primary purpose of this rule is to address intentional contact but just as the intentional foul rule has an extra clause that allows it to be call in the absence of intent, so does this rule. [This message has been edited by Camron Rust (edited January 25, 2000).]
|
|
Tue Jan 25, 2000, 05:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
Obviously, the goaltending issue is not mentioned with regard to the slapping rule - but if the ball hadn't been tipped I would count the basket. What if the ball acutally GOES IN?!?! Would everyone in support of the T be ready to call a T in addition to the basket??
[This message has been edited by bobbyho (edited January 25, 2000).]
|
|
Tue Jan 25, 2000, 06:28pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would not call a T in that case, but I had a partner who did. The evaluator gave us a good talk after the game about that situation and suggested that next time we lay off the whistle and that I should have talk him out of giving the T.
The only redeaming part was, that the game was on its way to a blowout and it did help the losing team.
|
|
Tue Jan 25, 2000, 07:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Camron - it's my perogative whether to ignore it or not. If I felt it was a legitimate shot block attempt, no call. You cannot penalize a player for trying to be strong in blocking a shot or for junky equipment. Is the defender supposed to say to himself, "I guess I won't use a lot of force to try to block this shot even if I get nothing but ball (which would, of course, be perfectly legal), because my arm might accidentally hit the backboard which might vibrate with a force that cannot be ignored because I know this school has a small budget and they probably don't have enought money to reinforce the backboard supports properly and there is an official here tonight who might interpret the rule that way"? I think not, my friend If it's a legitimate block attempt, it's a no call in my book because I will choose to ignore the resultant vibration (which, as I read the rule, is my choice).
|
|
Tue Jan 25, 2000, 10:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
If they go to block the shot and are on the same side as the ball and slap the backboard it's a "nothin burger"! What about the guys that have to slap the backboard when THEY are shooting a lay-in? What do you call?
------------------ Don
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
