It is addressed. Read case book play 10.3.5(b).

You have separate calls and separate rules. Deliberately hitting the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate is a technical foul. Note the word "deliberately". It's a judgment call always. You can <b> legally</b>knock the hell out if the backboard if it's judged to be a part of a valid attempt to block a shot. That's rule 10-3-5(b). You can <b>only</b> penalize that act as BI or goaltending also if the act meets the criteria of BI under rule 4-6 or goaltending under rule 4-22. Simply hitting the board does not meet the definitions as described in those rules.

Note that the play in the original post is <b>NOT</b> a technical foul either if the official judged that the defender was legitimately trying to block the shot.

Glad I could help. :)

BI - GT - Backboard ????
 

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.

I would think this is written with regard to a last second shot. The disagreement in this situation has to do with the call of goaltending. If goaltending is called, the basket definitely counts. Neither official has the authority to overrule the other's call of goaltending, no matter how wrong it may be. If the umpire waves off a basket because of a traveling call, the referee cannot count the basket because he feels the traveling call was incorrect.

Not relevant.

This is for a shot that does go in but is in question....did time expire or not, did two officials give opposing signals (good/no-good) on a buzzer shot, etc.

It is NOT to overrule the calling of an infraction that results in awarded/canceled points....to determine if there was GT or not. You can't overrule a partner's GT call and if you can't do that, you can't change the penalty for GT.

To add to others' input....it is a T to contact the backboard to gain an advantage....even if it doesn't vibrate. This might be seen by a player grabbing onto the board to hold on if they miss-time their jump for an alley oop....in hopes of still getting the ball....or, in the case of a defender, being near the rim to block an alley opp pass (or shot).

FYI. This question was based on the assumption that the basket was good in the OP. It wasn't clear (or I didn't read it good enough) that the ball never went in.

I knew it wasn't BI or GT. Thanks

That's because there's a thread about this every year.

I'd argue that 2-5-3 applies here.

Judgment calls cannot be overridden. Misinterpretations of rules can (carefully).

You might be completely right. But from what I am reading the rule does not classify that position one what kind of situation the basket can be changed. And personally I would not want to count a basket that is erroneously awarded. Now if the ball goes in than it is not much of a problem. I would just do everything I could to get that call changed. And if the official insisted on sticking with his call, he would be on his own to get out of it. I would be explaining his ruling. I would not sell him out either, I just would not be apart of the explanation.

Also in reality, many people that are assigned the Referee position are given that responsibility to get out of these kinds of situations. I know what the rule says, but if you allow an obvious rule misapplication, you all will go down potentially and often they look at the Referee.

Peace

2-5-3: The referee shall decide whether a goal shall count if the officials disagree.

5-1-1: A goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from above....

In this case there was no goal, but rather points awarded as the result of an infraction.



Around here the title Referee does not carry a lot of weight. It is usually decided by the 2 officials just before they take the court. "You wanna talk to
'em?" "I will or you can. Whatever."

The thing that is important in this case is that it was so easy for me to see what had (not) happened. The guy was not close to touching the ball. I would have called the T from trail (and a long way from the play) if my partner had not blown his whistle. If there had been even the slightest possibility that the call was correct, I probably would have said nothing. And it now seems that I was the only one in the gym that knew what the correct call was. Neither coach appeared to be upset by the goaltending call. Yes, I know keeping people happy and getting a call correct often have little to do with each other.

Thanks, that casebook play spells out the difference clear as day...I would still like to see it changed to where if you cause the ring to move while the ball is on it, it is BI...to me there should be no difference "why" the ring moved, if it moved it potentially had an impact on why the shot did not go in which would seem to be the whole reason behind why you score the goal when you have BI in the first place..the intentional contact with the backboard is completely separate as you all point out, therefore it should continue to carry its own penalty, but I don't see why you can't change the rule to penalize both in that situation (might have the side benefit of cutting backboard slapping down even further)...but again, they didn't ask for my input...thanks again to all for the good info...

I think the times that the backboard is slapped or even pushed such that the ball doesn't go in, and that's the only reason the ball doesn't fall, are extremely rare. I agree that it can happen, but I think the sportsnamship of slapping just for kicks, is the reason for the T, and the "vibrating the ring" issue is just separate. In general, the BI of moving the ring by hand is a lot more of an issue and a lot more likely to happen.

IF you give a T every time the board is slapped gratuitously, the slapping will be less and less. If you wait and give BI when the slap vibrates the ring, you'll have lots more slaps to see if they can get away with it.

Note that the violation is called <b>basket</b> interference. It isn't <b>backboard</b> interference. Imo there is no way for any official to <b>definitively</b> know that any backboard slap actually did cause a ball to spin out of the basket. And if there is no way to <b>definitively</b> know, you might be penalizing a player for an act that had no affect on the play.

There is provision now in the rules to penalize <b>both</b>, but only if <b>both</b> are committed <b>on</b> the basket. That's case book play 9.11.1SitB. If you do cause the ring to vibrate by actually hitting the ring(as per 10-3-5b), and if the ball is on or in the basket when you smacked the ring, you could also call both the "T" and BI in that case too.

Is it possible that 2-3 applies here? Misapplication of this rule seems different than 2-5-3, but a disagreement about the proper penalty and/or application of a rule does not seem to be covered anywhere.

2-3...The referee shall make decisions on any points no specifically covered in the rules.