Basket Interference?

[ReadyToRef]

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?

[ChuckElias]

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

[Slider]

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).

[BktBallRef]

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

[daves]

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.

[Tim Roden]

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.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Tim Roden
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.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Slider

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?

[Slider]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
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.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Slider

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.

[Slider]

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

[JRutledge]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slider

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

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Slider
However, the technical for striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate, is only for intentional acts, IMO (10-3-5).

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

[tharbert]

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....

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by tharbert
I agree there should be no tech but the question of interference is not cut and dried (NHSF).

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