The way I read that is it is a T when:

Art. 14. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or <b>[intentionally]</b> 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 or in the basket or in the cylinder.

Therefore, no T when it is unintentional.

And, there is no case where you must call something (if no rule is being violated).

Again, I concur here with slider on the reading of the NCAA rule. I will not debate the high school rule, but in that game I would still count the basket and play. If it is done intentionally, then I would call a Technical. Same in college games as well. Intentional give a Tech. Unintentional either score it and play on or if the backboard does not move or vibrate, play on.

i don't think i have ever had anyone say they would count the basket. until now. Now i have seen the basket counted, but that was because they did not know the rules. BBarnaky, i think i will not come over to the dark side on this one. :) Good luck, if it works for you, great.

Re: elastic clause?
 

Well, you just made up a rule. Neither is basket interference or goaltending. This does not even come close to what they both are. You have to call a T or you have to call nothing. And you cannot count the basket, if the ball does not go in.

No wonder we get so much crap.

Peace

While I am one to usually see a grey area on things that can be prevented to avoid adminsitrative T's or other nonsense, this rule is pretty clear. If the ball is in flight and there is an intentional slap that rattles the rim it is a T. If it is not intentional, or if the ball is not in flight, then there is nothing. If it is unintentional but it affects a soht there is no violation, this is black and white, not grey.

Why would you guys who say "count it" go looking for trouble? What will you tell a coach who knows the rule? I guess I need to add another line ot my pregame...

I think this part of the quote is clearer:

10.3.6 "it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player"

How do you attempt to draw attention unintentionally?

Re: Re: elastic clause?
 

this is a play not specifically covered by the rules. it is not covered by the rules regarding BI nor GT, it is neither a technical either. therefor this play is not covered and would need to be addressed. i would think that you would get more crap from a coach by not calling than you would by calling it. when i did score the basket neither coaches said any thing to me. if they did say or ask something i would tell them that the movement of the backboard caused the shot to be missed. to all their own

Re: Re: Re: elastic clause?
 

Have you ever thought that the coaches didn't say anything because they don't know the correct rule? With my luck, I'd have these coaches in their next game, this play would happen, and both (well, okay, only the disadvantaged coach) would be on my posterior for "blowing" the rule. When one official knowingly misapplies the rules, it makes life hard for the rest (i.e., the kid with an earring where the official let him wear it last night - actually happened to me :mad:)

If I'm not mistaken, there is a case play about this in NF rules - see 10.3.6. Elasticity applies when the rulebook says nothing about a situation. (I can't even think of a situation where I would apply rule 2-3.) Basket interference, however is quite clearly spelled out in the rulebook. The hitting the backboard is not in Rule 9 for a reason - it is not a BI violation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: elastic clause?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

that is exactly why it is in the rule book. for situations that are unthinkable but can actually happen, that is if 2-3 is the elasticity rule

So you would count the basket. Imagine that. With your tendancy for not following, not knowing or ignoring the rules, I believe can it. :(

Not covered in the rules. Horse manure! BI and GT are specifically covered by the rules and this doesn't qualify.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: elastic clause?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crew

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter Quote: (I can't even think of a situation where I would apply rule 2-3.)

Give me an example of when you've used/seen this used?

Crew, consider this situation:

In the country of Elbonia, murder is defined as killing someone by shooting them with a gun. Homicide is defined as killing someone by stabbing. The law also states that judges can impose penalties for acts which are contrary to the spirit of the law, but which are not covered in the law. You are the judge in a case where A1 has killed B1.

In case (A), A1 kills B1 with a rock. Here you might be able to go for murder - although a shrewd lawyer can argue that murder is killing someone with a gun, drive-by rockings are not defined, so the judge has liberty to decide.

In case (B), A1 kills B1 by stabbing, but it is a very gruesome killing. The judge decides to give the sentence of murder - this would be incorrect because both murder and the act that was comitted are very well defined.

In basketball, BI is a, b, c (and in NCAA d). A technical foul results from e, f, g, h, i, j . . .

If someone commits h, you're going to apply the penalty for a, b, or c?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: elastic clause?
 

[/QUOTE]

Give me an example of when you've used/seen this used? [/B][/QUOTE]

i have seen this used. in a game player a1 drives to the lane to make an attempt, b1 jumps to block, instead of an attempt a1 fakes and is directly under the basket. b1 whom jumped to block the attempt grasps the basket to avoid injury. the officials now have a situation where a1 with the ball is standing under b1 whom is hanging on the rim. both players are around the 6' 7" height. every one in the gym is confused on what to do because b1's nuts are in a1's face after a couple of seconds of confusion the lead blows his whistle for suspension of play and gives team a the ball under the basket. this is a play that is not specifically covered by the rules and the official had to do something.
as with a player unintentionally slapping the backboard causing it to shake at which causes the ball to "rim out." this is a play that is not covered by the rules-it is not specifically addressed but in a game time situation needs to be addressed. using common sense and some fair judgement you can handle this situation to the best of your abilities. me personally, i would score the basket.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: elastic clause?
 

Wrong again,crew,the play above is covered in the rules.R10-3-5Exception in the Fed book and R10-3-12a in the NCAA mens book.Both cover a player grabbing the ring to avoid injury.Why are you trying to apply R2-3 to something that is specifically covered elsewhere?The only judgement by the official in the above case is whether the player grabbed the ring to avoid injury.The only judgement by the official in the other case is whether the player slapped the board deliberately or not.In both cases,the penalty is a T.The rules for BI in both books also don't give you the right to award a basket.Nothing personal,crew,:D but you should really read the books a little bit more.Got a great bunch of neat things in there that you can use instead of 2-3.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 30th, 2002 at 05:35 AM]

How about the rules on how a team can score points. And then the rules on BI and GT. I don't remember anything about being able to score points when the opponent slapes the Back board.