The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 27, 2007, 03:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio, cincinnati
Posts: 813
What do you call here?

Game is under NFHS rules

Player A2 steals the ball from B1 in B's baclcourt and heads to the rim for a lay up - B1 truns and bolts after A2 and can not get to the layup and while the ball is on the cylinder B1 slaps the backboard, below the rim, hard enough to visibly vibrate the board and the ball does not go in.

please make your call and back it up with rules

feel free to add NCAA also.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 27, 2007, 03:56pm
Official & Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,379
Easy one. Technical foul on B1 for INTENTIONALLY slapping the backboard. Team A shoots two plus posession at mid-court. No credit for original layup attempt. Sorry I can't site FED rule #, as I'm still at work without my books, but I know it's in there.
__________________
Calling it both ways...since 1999

Last edited by Bad Zebra; Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:06pm.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 27, 2007, 04:21pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,591
First of all this is a judgment call if you call anything. If you deem the slapping the backboard is a result of a block attempt, you cannot call anything. If you think the only reason the board was slapped was to vibrate the rim or to showboat, then you have a technical foul. Nothing you stated makes either call clear. Vibrating the backboard is not a violation unto itself. This is one of those, "You have to see it to call it" type of conversations.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 27, 2007, 04:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 147
Send a message via ICQ to mcdanrd Send a message via AIM to mcdanrd Send a message via Yahoo to mcdanrd
This is a technical foul ONLY if the official determines that slapping the backboard was intentional. NFHS Rule 10.3.5b
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 27, 2007, 06:38pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,882
Backboard Slap

A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. These are examples of basket interference. It is legal to touch the ring or the net if the ball is above the ring and not touching the ring, even if the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is legal to hang on the ring if a player is avoiding an injury to himself or herself or another player.

The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending is contacting the ball on its downward flight, above the level of the rim, with a chance to go in. On most layups, the ball is going up after it contacts the backboard. It is legal to pin the ball against the backboard if it still on the way up and not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference nor is it goaltending and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard so forcefully that 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. When a player simply attempts to block a shot and accidentally slaps the backboard it is neither a violation nor is it a technical foul.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 28, 2007, 01:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHBBREF
Game is under NFHS rules

Player A2 steals the ball from B1 in B's baclcourt and heads to the rim for a lay up - B1 truns and bolts after A2 and can not get to the layup and while the ball is on the cylinder B1 slaps the backboard, below the rim, hard enough to visibly vibrate the board and the ball does not go in.

please make your call and back it up with rules

feel free to add NCAA also.
NFHS

Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties
SECTION 3 PLAYER TECHNICAL
A player shall not:

ART. 5 . . . Illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
a. Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage.
b. Intentionally 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.


PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.


NCAA

RULE 10 Fouls and Penalties
Section 3. Indirect Technical Fouls
Art. 15.
Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing either the backboard or ring to vibrate while the ball is in flight during a try, or while the ball is touching the backboard, is on the basket ring, in the basket net or the cylinder.


Section 4. Penalty for Indirect Technical Fouls
Art. 1. The penalty for an indirect technical foul shall be two free throws awarded to a player of the offended team. The ball shall be put back in play at the point of interruption.
...

Art. 2. Indirect technical fouls shall count neither toward a player's five fouls for disqualification nor toward the team-foul total.


Besides the penalties, there is a small difference in the wording as the NCAA rule includes "on the basket ring" and the NFHS rule only mentions the ball being "in the cylinder above the basket." Of course, this is not important because whenever a ball is on the basket ring, it is in the cylinder. So anyone who would argue that NFHS rule doesn't cover this situation is incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 28, 2007, 05:46am
Official & Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,379
This isn't a judgement call at all. Cut and dried. How can slapping the backboard while the ball is already on the ring be anything but intentional? The defender can't be attempting to block the shot...It's already been shot. T him/her up!
__________________
Calling it both ways...since 1999

Last edited by Bad Zebra; Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 05:49am.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 28, 2007, 08:50am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Zebra
This isn't a judgement call at all. Cut and dried. How can slapping the backboard while the ball is already on the ring be anything but intentional? The defender can't be attempting to block the shot...It's already been shot. T him/her up!
For you to say what a player cannot be doing is silly. Players at the HS level try stuff all the time that do not make complete sense. Where the ball is should not be a factor if you feel it was a legitimate attempt. This is where your experience and judgment come into play. And for you to say this is just cut and dry is kind of short sighted if you ask me. And it very much is a judgment call and this is why you get paid to make the big bucks to make these kinds of decisions. But to say it is not a judgment call is not at all true.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 28, 2007, 09:39am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Where the ball is should not be a factor if you feel it was a legitimate attempt. This is where your experience and judgment come into play. And for you to say this is just cut and dry is kind of short sighted if you ask me. And it very much is a judgment call and this is why you get paid to make the big bucks to make these kinds of decisions. But to say it is not a judgment call is not at all true.
Agree.

The rule--10-3-5- says you can't intentionally slap the board while the ball is in the basket. If they can write the rule to include the ball being already IN the basket, the intent sureasheck must include the ball being on the rim also. Iow, if it's not too late to make the call when the ball is in the basket, it can't be too late either when the ball is on the ring before entering the basket.

The only judgment on the play is whether the backboard slap was intentional or not.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 30, 2007, 08:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio, cincinnati
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHBBREF
Game is under NFHS rules

Player A2 steals the ball from B1 in B's baclcourt and heads to the rim for a lay up - B1 truns and bolts after A2 and can not get to the layup and while the ball is on the cylinder B1 slaps the backboard, below the rim, hard enough to visibly vibrate the board and the ball does not go in.

please make your call and back it up with rules

feel free to add NCAA also.
I agree with what people are saying about judging intent being dificult if not impossible.
in this case the officials blew the call as they called basket interfeence anyway. but the judgment if they had made the right Call "T" was sound, the player could not be blocking the shot becuase he hit the backboard below the rim.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 30, 2007, 09:32am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHBBREF
in this case the officials blew the call as they called basket interference anyway. but the judgment if they had made the right Call "T" was sound, the player could not be blocking the shot because he hit the backboard below the rim.
That's a wrong assumption also. Where the backboard was hit is irrelevant as long as the the contact was on the same side of the backboard that the ball was put up on. The criteria used to determine the call is simply judging whether the player was legitimately attempting to block the ball or not.

Don't make the call any harder than it has to be.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 30, 2007, 10:45am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHBBREF
I agree with what people are saying about judging intent being dificult if not impossible.
in this case the officials blew the call as they called basket interfeence anyway. but the judgment if they had made the right Call "T" was sound, the player could not be blocking the shot becuase he hit the backboard below the rim.
If you can show me where "below the rim" makes this an obvious call I would agree with you. I guess if a shorter player hits the backboard below the rim, they are always in jeopardy of being called for a T in these types of situation.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 30, 2007, 10:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
That's a wrong assumption also. Where the backboard was hit is irrelevant as long as the the contact was on the same side of the backboard that the ball was put up on. The criteria used to determine the call is simply judging whether the player was legitimately attempting to block the ball or not.

Don't make the call any harder than it has to be.
If the ball is on the cylinder, as in the OP, and the opponent slaps the $h*t out of the backboard, unintentionally, causing the ring to vibrate and the ball to fall off, is this still a no call?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 30, 2007, 10:56am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheRef
If the ball is on the cylinder, as in the OP, and the opponent slaps the $h*t out of the backboard, unintentionally, causing the ring to vibrate and the ball to fall off, is this still a no call?
Let me make this clear to you and everyone reading this. The amount of vibration on the rim/backboard has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The only thing you have to determine is if any player hit the backboard on purpose to showboat or to purposely vibrate the backboard. If you determine there was attempt to block a shot and they miss the ball, whether they hit the backboard hard is not apart of this call. Vibrating the backboard cannot be goaltending or basket interference considering that the backboard has nothing to do with that call.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 30, 2007, 11:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Let me make this clear to you and everyone reading this. The amount of vibration on the rim/backboard has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The only thing you have to determine is if any player hit the backboard on purpose to showboat or to purposely vibrate the backboard. If you determine there was attempt to block a shot and they miss the ball, whether they hit the backboard hard is not apart of this call. Vibrating the backboard cannot be goaltending or basket interference considering that the backboard has nothing to do with that call.

Peace
I completely understand that, but doesn't rule 10-3-5 say, intentionally slap or stike the backboard OR cause the ring to vibrate. I see that as 2 conditions of 10-3-5 that a player can get a technical foul if the ball is in flight, touching the backboard or in the basket or the cylinder. Since we all know that we can't count the basket for BI or goaltending, then I am probably going to whack the defender.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASA OBS call then no call leads to ejection DaveASA/FED Softball 28 Mon Jul 12, 2004 03:52pm
To call or not to call foul ball DaveASA/FED Softball 11 Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:47am
More Pacers/Pistons call/no call OverAndBack Basketball 36 Thu Jun 03, 2004 07:01pm
Good Call / Bad Call whiskers_ump Softball 29 Fri Mar 28, 2003 09:35am
Does one call relate to the last call? Tee Basketball 28 Thu Feb 13, 2003 05:53pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1