I don't believe this part of the situation has any bearing on the Case. Bottom line is player never properly inbounded the ball. Period.

My point exactly.

I think this is why they are supposed to look at this again this year. We have some guys that will go for a blocked shot and shake the heck out of the backboard and rim and on some baskets they will actually move the ones that are the old style still attached to the ceilings and WE CAN CALL NOTHING! Don't agree with that at all... if i go for a blocked shot and move the rim back and forth and cause the ball to come off because of me hitting it, the official should be able to call basket interference. Anyone agree????

I would agree. I have seen some guys slap the backboard hard enough to affect a shot like a layup or a shot that is "hanging" on the rim or the heel of the rim. I would suggest that if the player goes for a block and strikes part of the ball and then hits the backboard that should be legal, but if the player misses the ball entirely and then strikes the backboard that should be illegal and the basket should count.

If we're going to do it, keep it "simple." If the slap makes the rim vibrate or move while the ball is in the cylinder, call BI. Don't worry about whether the blocker makes any contact with the ball.

I agree with that! If it causes the ball to come out, BI, simple enough! Would get more people calling that than the technical that shouldn't be called in the first place.

Way Back When ...
 

Way back, didn't the NFHS slapping the backboard rule include something about the backboard, or basket, vibrating?

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTbx6WuP...te/wayback.jpg

Would you call this a T?

A1 shoots a break-away layup. B1, trailing and flying in right behind, leaps and strikes the backboard with considerable force. You notice that when B1 struck the backboard, he wasn't actually looking up. His oustretched arm was straight up, not moving toward the ball.

Would you consider this an attempt to block the shot? Perhaps a desperate effort, while running flat out, by B1 to get his hand up near the ball and maybe get lucky? Would you consider this nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to vibrate the backboard and rim, hoping the shot will roll off? Would it matter to you whether B1 used his "inside" or "outside" hand?

The Eyes Don't Have It ...
 

No call. It is mentioned that the defender isn't looking at the ball. To me, that's less important in making the correct call than the timing of the play. If the defender is too late to have any real possibility of blocking the shot, I would consider a technical foul. It is also mentioned that the defender, if he is lucky, has a chance of blocking, or at least, getting a finger on the ball. To me, that's a legal, and probabilistic, attempt to block the shot, which would warrant my no call.

NFHS Rule 10-3-5: A player shall not illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
a. Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage.
b. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or cause the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

10.3.5 Situation: A1 tries for a goal, and (a) B1 jumps and attempts to block the shot but instead slaps or strikes the backboard and the ball goes into the basket; or (b) B1 vibrates the ring as a result of pulling on the net and the ball does not enter the basket.
Ruling: In (a) legal and the basket counts; and (b) a technical foul is charged to B1 and there is no basket. Comment: 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. A player who strikes either backboard so forcefully 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 pursuant to Rule 10-3-7.

In Situation 10.3.5b above, why is b a technical foul? B1 hasn't placed a hand on the ring to gain an advantage, the net is part of the basket, not part of the ring.

NFHS Rule 1-10-1: Each basket shall consist of a single metal ring, its flange and braces, and a white-cord suspended from beneath the ring.

Is it because B1 has caused the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight? Does the word intentionally go with both the clause regarding slapping or striking the backboard, as well as the clause regarding causing the ring to vibrate? If so, don't we have to consider intent, as the case book comment seems to imply? If the net is pulled and the ball doesn't enter the basket while the ball is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket, and we have decided that there was no intent to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, can't we just call basket interference and award the two points, or does this case book situation force us to go with a technical foul, and not award the basket?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Rule 10-3-5(b) definitively says it's a "T" to cause the ring to vibrate while a try is in flight, touching the backboard, or in the basket or cylinder. That's exactly what B1 did in casebook play 10.3.5(b). There's no gray area.

Note that it's only a technical foul under rule 10-3-5 to pull the net if you do so while a try is in flight.

Further note that it doesn't really matter, because it is <b>always</b> a technical foul to pull the net under rule 10-3-4 anyway(unless the player grasped the net to prevent injury). The net is part of the basket, by rule, as you pointed out above. And....you can't grasp either basket at any time under 10-3-4, except for the disclaimer above. It has always amazed me that the FED hasn't pointed this little fact out. It makes casebook play 10.3.5(b) redundant.

If a technical is called in this situation, is direct or indirect in both NFHS and NCAA?

Very informative tread... other than the Sox references, said the Yankees fan.

Scratching My Head ???
 

Thanks for reminding me about NFHS Rule 10-3-4.

Let's say that after a legal try, the ball ends up sitting on the ring, and a defensive player accidental touches the net. Ball falls off ring and doesn't go in. Basket interference. Award the goal. New offensive team gets ball on end line and can run the endline.

Let's say that after a legal try, the ball ends up sitting on the ring, and a defensive player accidentally grabs the net. Basket vibrates (10-3-5), or doesn't vibrate (10-3-4). Ball falls into basket. Technical foul. Disallow the goal (basket (net) grab technical foul caused ball to become dead). Two technical foul shots, same team gets ball to inbound at the halfcourt line opposite the table. One more foul added to defensive team total.

So the difference between accidentally touching the net, and grabbing the net, is the difference between giving a team a definite two points (awarding the goal for basket interference), and giving a team a chance, but not definite, to score from none to, let's say four, or, maybe, five points (lots of possibilities after the technical foul shots are either made or missed) after disallowing the definite goal?

I know that your are probably correct by rule, and probably by the intent of the rule as well, but, to me, something just doesn't seem right here???

http://www.therealmartha.com/brights...ad_scratch.jpg

It is a player technical foul and is not applied to the coach in any way, so it is neither a direct nor indirect technical.

Do you want to give him the NCAA answer now?

What isn't right is your answer above. The defensive player is charged with the technical foul, as you said. However, the defensive player is also charged with BI at the same time...for grabbing the net while the ball was on the ring. You penalize both. You award the basket for defensive BI and you also charge the defensive player with a "T" for grabbing the net.

Read case book play 9.11.1SitB, Billy. It's basically the exact same play.