Slapping the Backboard

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I dont think OP's initial situation is necessarily a T (not without more information anyway).

10-3-5(b): It is a player technical to ... "illegally contact the backboard/ring by ... intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or cylinder above the basket."

Of course, you also have (a) which mentions touching the board to get an advantage. If you think B1 hit the board to vibrate it to make it harder for A1 to make the shot--even though there was as of yet no shot--that could be a T.

But in cases of accidental contact from a missed block--which is what the OP's situation may include--there is a case play that helps us.

The caseplay at 10.3.5 isnt right on point but it is pretty close. Situation (a) deals with the accidental striking of the backboard during a missed block on a shot and says the contact with the backboard is legal and is not a T.

The comment further states:

"The purpose of the rule is to penalize intentional contact with the backboard while a shot or try is involved or placing a hand on the backboard to gain an advantage."

So in the OP's situation, there was no try at the time of the slap. So there may not be a T here under (b) as the rule only addresses contacting the backboard while a try is in flight or the ball is on the backboard, rim or basket; and (a) requires an intent to gain an advantage. If this was a backboard whack from a good fake by A1 and the contact by B1 was not done with the intent to gain an advantage, its not a T.

However, that same comment for 10-3-5 goes on to say: "A player who strikes either backboard so forcefully it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player or means of venting frustration may be assessed a technical foul per rule 10-3-7."

So back to the OP's situation, if it is a slap of the board because the guy got faked out, that is no T if it is accidental. Just contacting the backboard is not a T. However, if it was frustration or showing off, it is a T per 10-3-7 as the comment to the caseplay notes.

Seems to me the OP's situation is not a T and is more like caseplay 10.3.5(a). If 10.3.5(a) is NOT a T (which the casebook says it isnt) then the OP's situation--which doesnt even involve a try at the time of the contact--is likely also not a T, unless the other factors are present as noted in the Comment (so forceful it cant be ignored, venting frustration or drawing attention to the player). Of course, I'd have to be there or have more info. If you want to post what you thought the intent was, that could be helpful.

I have to say that even for a lawyer this is over the top.
Have you actually read what you wrote?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't... so it could be...but perhaps not...
Is there any conclusion in there at all?