A shoots a layup while B makes a legitimate attempt to block. B's strikes backboard on follow through of legitimate attempt. I understand that this is no T but is it basket interference?

No. Touching the backboard is NEVER basket interference or goaltending. NEVER. You could call a T if the backboard shakes enough to have an affect on the shot (ball's on the rim and rolls off, for example), even if the defender had made a legitimate attempt at the ball. Otherwise, you got nothing

Chuck

I agree with ChuckElias that this is not GT or BI, you must touch either the ball or the basket to have one of those.
However, the technical for striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate, is only for intentional acts, IMO (10-3-5).

As long as he's attempting to block the shot, I have nothing.

I agree with the experts. No T, no BI, not GT, no call unless the striking is intentional and not as the result of a block attempt.

If in your opinion, the hitting of the backboard caused the ball to not fall in and it would have if the backboard was not hit, then the only option is the Technical. Otherwise, it better be an intentional act before you call it.

If the backboard is vibrating (ring vibrating) because of an UNintetional act which causes the ball to not go in:

I have a missed shot, and nothing else, maybe go to the AP on the miss. May stop the game if the backboard keeps moving. What is the point of a T? The rules don't say you have to give one the way I read it.

You lost me Slider Why would you ever go to the AP on this play?

The try ends with the miss, blow the ball dead at that point if the ring is still vibrating.

If it was vibrating so much that you felt inclined to shut down the game, I think that probably a T would be justified. If you shut it down because of the vibration and Team A does not get some compensation, there is no good justification you can give the coach.

If you use the rationale that the act has to be intentional, then let the game continue. I personally agree with you that the T would not be the right call. I just don't agree with shutting down the game.

The hit may not have to be that hard if the support is faulty.

WHAT!!!!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slider

Quote:

If the backboard is vibrating (ring vibrating) because of an UNintetional act which causes the ball to not go in: I have a missed shot, and nothing else, maybe go to the AP on the miss. May stop the game if the backboard keeps moving. What is the point of a T? The rules don't say you have to give one the way I read it.

Now for someone that wants to stick to the literal definitions of the law, where in the rulebook did you dig that interpretation out of?

Peace

But in the case book, it says that a T can be assessed if the contact is so hard "that it cannot be ignored". If it causes the ball not to go in the basket, can you ignore that?

Chuck

I agree there should be no tech but the question of interference is not cut and dried (NHSF). During a layup, the ball usually enters the cylinder quickly. Contact while any portion of the ball is in the cylinder and vibrations cause by contact while the ball is in the cylinder constitute basket interference. Call the interference and you don't have to worry about slowing the game down. Basket counts and we head the other way. This sends the message not to whack the backboard too. You may let it go in college but you wouldn't at lower levels.

This all assumes the ball is close to the rim and trail has the whole play....

You may not agree with my comment that a T could be assessed, but I reiterate my claim that touching the backboard is never BI. Look up basket interference in your rulebook (Definitions, 4-6) and you will see that it is called in only 3 specifically outlined situations. One of those situations involves touching the "basket".

The basket is the rim, flange and net (although I can't find the specific page where the definition is given). Since touching the backboard is not the same as touching the basket, touching the backboard cannot be BI.

It really is that cut and dried, for once :)

Chuck

In a high school game, I observed this from the stands recently. Funny this was brought up. The official assessed a technical foul.

I totally disagree. The official even told me later when I talked to him after the game, he didn't think the player slapped it intentionally. I thought that was the point of the rule, was to penalize intentional slaps??!!!

I would have scored the basket and play on. Defensive player B tries to make a legitimate block on the ball and misses it and causes the backboard to move and the ball which was going in to come out and off of the rim. I score it here. Good play by defensive players should not be penalized and given a technical foul for athletic play at or above rim level.

After all its not the player's fault they don't have better goals so he can go after the ball and not move the backboard and/or support(s) to it, right?

Good play here.

I agree with no T,but what Fed rule allows you to award the basket?

How about elasticity rule?? Seriously, though, why should we not count it? Doesn't it make sense? Score the basket because the backboard moved too much and caused the ball to miss.

Why penalize a player for making a great play by giving him a technical foul, which in high school is two shots and the ball, for using his athletic abilities.

What exactly was the "great play" involved here? He jumped and whacked the backboard. That's not a great play, in my humble opinion. But even if I'm wrong (which has been the case once or twice), if the contact interefered with the ball going in the basket, and you feel it cannot be ignored, then your only option under the rules for both HS and NCAA is the T. You cannot score the hoop. That would just be making up your own rules as you go. Don't do it.

It seems to me that this is not a judgment/philosophy issue. It's as clear cut as it can possibly be. There are three and only three situations in which BI can be called in HS (four in NCAA, thanks to Teddy and Bobby); and this isn't one of them.

Chuck

Never argue with someone who has the book open...
What's the rule about the vibrations chuck? What's it called when the backboard is slapped causing vibrations in the rim that affect the shot on goal? I know there is a name for it...I don't have my book with me but I'm sure it's there somewhere. Can you help a brother out?

If the backboard is slapped unintentionally with sufficient force to affect the shot, do you still have nothing but good D?

Interesting that someone finally brought up Teddy and Bobby...the reason that Teddy and Bobby had their problem a few years back was that Teddy called the play correctly, but Bobby wanted someone to give him the basket since the rim got moved around and the ball popped out...situations like that happen because some officials decide to call things that "just make sense" but don't fit the rules, then the next time it happens and the refs call it correctly, the coaches go nuts...there is no BI on this original play - no matter how much the basket is moving, and no matter how much simpler it would be to call it that way...we have two choices: 1)Play on...2)Call the T for intentional contact with the backboard...as Chuch already said - it really is that simple!

Elasticity allows judgement for situations not covered in the rules.

When the rules say BI is a, b, or c, and you say BI is also d (in an NF game), you are adding to the rules, not interpreting them.

I agree that this should be BI, not a no-call or T. However, until the rule is changed, I'm not calling BI!

The other guys said it all,BB.You can't count the basket because the rules,as written,do not allow you to count the basket.Simple as that!

Elasticity is only for points not covered in the rules and only elasticity within the rules. We have clear cut rules in this case. If i was to count a basket for slaping the back board in an NCAA game, at the very least i would not have as good a schedule the following year. This rule is a no brainer.

Just for the record, here's the NCAA rule:

Rule 10
Section 3. Indirect Technical Fouls
The following shall result in an indirect technical foul being charged to a team or player:
Art. 14. 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 or in the basket or in the cylinder.

The way I read this (because of the "or"s), it's a T if an unintentional slap causes vibration while the ball is on the basket or in the cylinder.

I agree with the majority. You have to call the "T", or a no-call, but not BI. I don't like it, but that's the way it is written right now. One point that I have not seen mentioned, is that the shot would still have its own merit. Count it, if it goes in, no goal if missed.

Lotto, I think this is a cover your axx type grammer. Avoids the mind reading issue.

score it
 

i have actually had this happen in a highschool game and a college game. in both cases i just scored the basket and played on. the players in both situations were trying to block the shot missed and hit the backboard very hard. the result was a very shaky backboard and the ball rimmed out. the rule book covers intentionally slapping the backborad, not incidental. elasticity(something not specifically covered by the rules) would extend to cover this situation in my opinion. scoring the basket is what makes sense, it will not get you in trouble by coaches nor supervisors. i would not dice this play up to much nor be so pure as to issue a tech., keep it simple.

Her, here!
Brovo crew!

OK so I can't type...
Here, here!
Bravo crew

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.

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

well JR,
the official called a suspension of play during a live ball because of the confusion, not because the player hung on the rim. that is the 2-3 situation that i am referencing. i know that hanging on the rim to prevent injury is legal in NF nc2a and nba. do not think that i got where i am because i do not know the rules. rules knowledge combined with common sense is an important part of my success. have a nice day

Common Sense
 

Common sense is not making up rules. Common sense is applying the rules appropriately to the situation that occurs. This is not common sense, because the rules clearly state how baskets can be counted and not counted. And in at least the NF has made this a point of emphisis recently, you should not be talking about counting a basket for vibrated backboard unless it falls under the rules for BI and GT. Sorry crew, this is not what the rules requires us to do.

Common sense has much more to do with what you call and when you call it, but not making up rules to right a wrong. You still have to apply what the rulebook says, and do what is right in that situation. Especially if the casebook and rulebook specificially cover this situation. And in this case it does and your solution is from the stars.

Peace

Re: score it
 

Crew, I was working an NCAA game and we had this in a game. I was lead, partners at T and C. T awarded the basket. After the game, an evaluator came into the locker room and ripped the T up one side and down the other. His point was it can't be BI under any definition and there is nothing that allows the counting of the goal. If it was a legitimate attempt to block, play on. I found out later that the coach whose team had the goal counted against him later sent the tape of the game to our supervisor and our supervisor pulled a week's worth of games from the T official for "making up rules as he went along". I agree that a tech isn't issued but right now there is nothing that allows you to count it.

Re: Re: score it
 

Good post, Walter. Maybe he'll believe you!!

i will back down from my stand on scoring the basket.

Crew, you mean you are crossing the line to the Light side? :)

hell no

LONG LIVE THE REBELLION!

I'm impressed crew; it is hard to take a stand and then reverse it when the evidence doesn't go your way--in this thread you have displayed the attributes of a good official.