Communication to get call straight

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nothing, except article 4:
Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position.

Do you see what I mean though about this being fundamentally unfair? If the ball happened to go in you would count it and still assess the T. Yet the reason it didn't go in (at least potentially) is b/c the act that brought the T caused it not to...I don't see the reasoning behind excluding the backboard from this provision, until they make rings that are detached from backboards and floating on their own, if you move the backboard you also move the ring! I would hope this would be addressed at some point, but I suppose there are bigger things...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Do you see what I mean though about this being fundamentally unfair? If the ball happened to go in you would count it and still assess the T. Yet the reason it didn't go in (at least potentially) is b/c the act that brought the T caused it not to...I don't see the reasoning behind excluding the backboard from this provision, until they make rings that are detached from backboards and floating on their own, if you move the backboard you also move the ring! I would hope this would be addressed at some point, but I suppose there are bigger things...

I do not see why this is unfair. The rules just exclude the backboard. I guess they feel the backboard is not an initial part of making the basket. And honestly, I have never seen a ball not go in just because a backboard has been hit or shaken. Then again the issue is not always about fair, the issue is what the rules say. And if this was such a growing problem then maybe the rule would change. I do not think they have seen this as a major issue.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Do you see what I mean though about this being fundamentally unfair? If the ball happened to go in you would count it and still assess the T. Yet the reason it didn't go in (at least potentially) is b/c the act that brought the T caused it not to...I don't see the reasoning behind excluding the backboard from this provision, until they make rings that are detached from backboards and floating on their own, if you move the backboard you also move the ring! I would hope this would be addressed at some point, but I suppose there are bigger things...

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 legallyknock 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 only 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 NOT a technical foul either if the official judged that the defender was legitimately trying to block the shot.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 legallyknock 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 only 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 NOT a technical foul either if the official judged that the defender was legitimately trying to block the shot.

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...

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by kbilla

.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..

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kbilla

..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)....

Note that the violation is called basket interference. It isn't backboard interference. Imo there is no way for any official to definitively know that any backboard slap actually did cause a ball to spin out of the basket. And if there is no way to definitively 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 both, but only if both are committed on 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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Imo there is no way for any official to definitively know that any backboard slap actually did cause a ball to spin out of the basket. And if there is no way to definitively know, you might be penalizing a player for an act that had no affect on the play.

And that statement could equallly be applied to a real BI or GT call too. The defense is penalized even when the shot may have missed...we'll never know. So, that is not a sufficient reason to favor or oppose a rule change on making backboard contact the same as BI.