Basket Interference or Not!

[9redskin4]

I have been involved in two situations in the last week that have brought up a question about basket interference. Let me explain the situations first.

Situation 1 = Player A10 is driving to the basket on a fast break with B25 following. A10 attempts a shot and just as it leaves his hand, B25 slaps the backboard causing the entire goal to shake. At the time the backboard is slapped the ball is still clearly below the cylinder. As the trail official I call a technical foul for slapping the backboard. My partner comes to me and says that we should have basket interference and the goal should count as well. he was the senior official and I wasn't real sure at the time on the ruling, so we awarded the goal, two FT's, and team A possession. On the way home I questioned my partner and said the ball needed to be on or within the cylinder for BI to occur. 4-6 says, Basket interference occurs when a player 1. touches the ball or any part of the basket (including the net) while the ball is on or within either basket. 2. touches the ball while any part of the ball is within the imaginary cylinder which has the basket ring as its lower base. Therefore, we should not have awarded the goal based on BI rule.

Situation 2 = same as situation one, except this time B25 slaps the backboard while the ball is sitting on the ring causing the ball to fall off the ring. As the trail I called the technical, awarded the goal for BI, and possession to team A.

Later another official asked if that truly is BI. The question comes into play when you interpret the word basket in rule 4-6. Does the word basket include the backboard? My interpretation says that if the slapping of the backboard could cause the ball to not go in, then it is BI. Also the ball must be clearly on the ring or in the imaginary cylinder above the ring.

What do you guys think?

[bob jenkins]

It's never BI to contact the backboard -- it doesn't matter whenther the ball is on the basket or not. IT might be a T. The basket counts if the ball goes in; doesn't count if it doesn't go in.

The "basket" doesn't include the backboard -- see 1-10-1.

[BktBallRef]

There's no "think" to it. Neither sitaution is BI.

If you'll look in the rule book, you'll find that the basket is not the backboard. (1-10-1)

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by 9redskin4

My interpretation says that if the slapping of the backboard could cause the ball to not go in, then it is BI. Also the ball must be clearly on the ring or in the imaginary cylinder above the ring.

What do you guys think?

If you search, there are several old threads on this issue. The important point, however, is that slapping the backboard is never basket interference.

[rsox34]

You cannot have BASKET INTERFERENCE by hitting the backboard. Therefore, it is either a Technical foul for slapping the backboard INTENTIONALLY or you rule the defender was making a legitimate attempt to block the shot--whether he hit the backboard is irrelevant if you rule his attempt was legitimate. The only way you rule a Technical is if you deem the player was trying to hit the backobard INTENTIONALLy --was trying to vent frustration or show off.

So it appears you were correct in your original thinking--if you thought the blocker slapped the backboard intentionally. However, if the defender just missed the ball but still hit the board in a legitimate attempt to blaock the shot--then yyou both were wrong. If defenders attempt was legit--just ignore the hitting of the board and play on.

[Scrapper1]

It's so simple...Why do people continue to have difficulty with this issue

Because they watch the NBA where it is BI. Rule 11, Section I - i. http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_11...av=ArticleList

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Because they watch the NBA where it is BI. Rule 11, Section I - i. http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_11...av=ArticleList

That and it does seem a little inconsistent....B1 slaps the backboard in a "legitimate" attempt to block the shot, and causes the backboard (and attached ring) to vibrate, no call...B1 grabs the ring and pulls down it in causing the ring to vibrate, you can have BI......both cases the ring vibrates, but only one is BI...I was one of those who had this misconception, but am now straightened out, but I sympathize!

[BktBallRef]

Grabbing the rim and BI have nothing to do with the rim vibrating.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Grabbing the rim and BI have nothing to do with the rim vibrating.

I thought there was a caseplay where B1 pulls the rim down and releases it causing it to vibrate during the attempt resulting in BI...anyone? I don't have my casebook..

[Johnny Ringo]

What if the ball is in on the rim ... the attempt to block the shot causes the entire structure to shake and ball fails to go through the hoop ... what do you have here?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

What if the ball is in on the rim ... the attempt to block the shot causes the entire structure to shake and ball fails to go through the hoop ... what do you have here?

nothin'

And really, how often does this actually happen? I can't say I've EVER seen it.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

What if the ball is in on the rim ... the attempt to block the shot causes the entire structure to shake and ball fails to go through the hoop ... what do you have here?

If it was a legitimate attempt to block the shot, then I have nothing. If it was an intentional slap to bring attention to himself, then I have a T. What happens to the ball simply does not matter.

There is no rules support for awarding 2 points for BI.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Grabbing the rim and BI have nothing to do with the rim vibrating.

Found what I was looking for cb play 9.11.4 where the shot strikes a vibrating ring that was caused by B2 pulling down on the rim to avoid injury, you no tech (to avoid injury), but you have BI.....never seen it, but it could happen...

What this play doesn't discuss though is what if B2 pulled down on the rim intentionally and the shot struck the rim while it was vibrating? You'd have the tech for sure, but would you still count the goal for BI in this case too?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Found what I was looking for cb play 9.11.4 where the shot strikes a vibrating ring that was caused by B2 pulling down on the rim to avoid injury, you no tech (to avoid injury), but you have BI.....never seen it, but it could happen...

What this play doesn't discuss though is what if B2 pulled down on the rim intentionally and the shot struck the rim while it was vibrating? You'd have the tech for sure, but would you still count the goal for BI in this case too?

You can have both BI (for violation 4-6-4) and a T. Note that this rule was jsut added a couple of years ago and has nothing to do with the OP or any other cause of the ring "vibrating"

[Johnny Ringo]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

nothin'

And really, how often does this actually happen? I can't say I've EVER seen it.

I can't say I have ever seen it either ... but I have had a lot of partners who have!