Slapping the Backboard

[Scooby]

I had a play where A1 was going in for a layup. B1 was chasing. A1 faked the shot B1 went up and slapped the backboard, he was initially trying to block a shot but at the time of him hitting the backboard there was no shot and the ball was still in the hands of A1. Then A1 shot and made the basket. T or no T? I did not T B1.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Scooby

I had a play where A1 was going in for a layup. B1 was chasing. A1 faked the shot B1 went up and slapped the backboard, he was initially trying to block a shot but at the time of him hitting the backboard there was no shot and the ball was still in the hands of A1. Then A1 shot and made the basket. T or no T? I did not T B1.

HTBT, but probably, no T. If B1 was attempting to block a shot (regardless of the fact that the shot was a fake) then no T.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scooby

I had a play where A1 was going in for a layup. B1 was chasing. A1 faked the shot B1 went up and slapped the backboard, he was initially trying to block a shot but at the time of him hitting the backboard there was no shot and the ball was still in the hands of A1. Then A1 shot and made the basket. T or no T? I did not T B1.

Technical foul. Easy call...made it myself two weeks ago.

Pump fake, B1 goes up and slaps the backboard unecessarily. If there's no shot, there's no block attempt.

2nd half, same game, A1 drives baseline, reverse layup. B1 flies in and slaps the other side of the backboard. Second T.

Never made that call in my life and I get it twice in one game.

[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.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Pump fake, B1 goes up and slaps the backboard unecessarily. If there's no shot, there's no block attempt.

2nd half, same game, A1 drives baseline, reverse layup. B1 flies in and slaps the other side of the backboard. Second T.

Nice! I bet you are overjoyed when players do dumb stuff like this. (Not!) Its like when you administer the ball in a low level game and a 6th guy just runs on the court into the action. What can you do. Ring it up, look at the coach, give em the "you know I gotta do it..." look, and even the coach nods their head.

Second one is a great T.

First one might be worth some discussion, just for illustration of course (Obviously it is a good T, not criticizing, just noting for discussion). Your call might even be a good example of 10-3-5(a) where he is trying to hit the board not just as a failed block but to hinder the subsequent shot. As noted in the rules, slapping the board when a try is not in flight is not an automatic T unless it deserves to be penalized under 10-3-5(a) or 10-3-7 (as detailed in the note to caseplay 10.3.5). Sounds like the player in your case on the first board slap was showing off or trying to hinder the upcoming shot, which is a good T either way.

Again, not criticizing you, simply noting for discussion so that newbies here dont think all board slaps are Ts. In fact, I hope that people take from this thread that a good hard board slap can be a real easy T--under 10-3-7, as well as under 10-3-5(a) or (b).

If you have good leapers in an upcoming game and expect some serious shot blocking, younger guys might want to pregame this rule.

Sorry you got two of those in one game. Yikes.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Technical foul. Easy call...made it myself two weeks ago.

Pump fake, B1 goes up and slaps the backboard unecessarily. If there's no shot, there's no block attempt.

Agree. You are wise beyond your years. There's absolutely no reason or need for any player to slap the backboard when there isn't a shot on the way.

As already cited from casebook play 10.3.5--"A player who strikes either backboard so forcefully it can't be ignored because it is an attempt to to draw attention to the player, or as a means of venting of venting frustration may be issued a technical foul pursuant to Rule 10-3-7." The key words are "so forcefully it can't be ignored" and "may". It's always a judgment call. However, when there's a situation like this where I can't think of any good reason why the player is whacking the board, other than what is stated in the case play, I'd sureasheck say a "T" is warranted.

[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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

He'd make a good judge. He's making sure that there's no grounds for appeal.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

Good grief, Nevada, isn't that the valentine calling the poinsetta red?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by cdaref

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."

There is no shot attempt in the OP or in my first play. This rule is all that's needed.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Good grief, Nevada, isn't that the valentine calling the poinsetta red?

Ain't that the damn truth?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There is no shot attempt in the OP or in my first play. This rule is all that's needed.

I agree with you in your play. In the OP, it's hard to tell whether the slap was just an unavoidable follow through, and how hard a slap it was. Would you ever no-call the defender putting his hand on the backboard after a fake?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Would you ever no-call the defender putting his hand on the backboard after a fake?

Well, I ain't Tony but I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.......

Judgment call. If the hand is just a follow-through on the momentum of being faked out, and it's not a deliberate slap per se, then no "T" imo.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I agree with you in your play. In the OP, it's hard to tell whether the slap was just an unavoidable follow through, and how hard a slap it was. Would you ever no-call the defender putting his hand on the backboard after a fake?

I see no difference in the two plays. He wrote, "...B1 went up and slapped the backboard..." Putting the hand on the backboard is not slapping the backboard. I can put a hand on a child without slapping him.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I can put a hand on a child without slapping him.

Yeah, but slapping them is more effective.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, but slapping them is more effective.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a joke. Still - it's not funny.