Inbounding and backboard slapping

[jdmara]

NFHS rules apply.

First of all, lets deal with inbounding. I was doing a college intramural game the other night. Team A makes a basket. B1 picks up the ball from the net near the block and passes it to B2, who is located on the wing. B2 starts to dribble up court on a "fast break". I was stunned realizing that not only did B1 not legally inbound the basketball he didn't even take a step near the baseline. He was not within 3 feet of the baseball/ The only thing I could think of, as I'm standing at the baseline all lonely, is to start my count. The result of the play was five seconds. How should one handle this situation? I have thought of it since then and don't know how else to call it.

Second of all, someone please shed some light on slapping of the backboard. The rule has always confused me. When is this act legal? illegal? Thanks everyone, as always

-Josh

[Adam]

If you've determined the players aren't going to inbound the ball, call an immediate throw-in violation. Case play 9.2.2C is clear on this. My guess is they want it called because the team could easily score within 5 seconds, and then the other team could be on their way down the court before you get to your count. There could be other rules to deal with this, but it's just easier to call the violation once it's clear they aren't going to do a proper throwin.

In spite of what the Vail Christian varsity coach tried to tell me this past season, slapping the backboard is legal if it is the result of legitimate play (attempting to block a shot, trying for a rebound, etc.) It is not legal if it is purposefully done.

[grunewar]

Case Book, 9.2.2 Sit C. Throw-in Violation. B1 must be out of bounds to make legal throw in. Blow it dead.

Case Book 10.3.5. Contacting Backboard. Must interpret the purpose of the rule which is to penalize intentional contact while a shot or try is involved. A player who strikes a backboard intentionally or to draw attention to theselves, or a means of venting frustration "may" be assessed a T. See rule 10.3.7.

edit - you're too quick for me Snaq!

[rsox34]

If you are going to penalize a player for slapping the backboard by assessing a Technical foul, you need to determine if the player/slapper INTENTIONALLY slapped the board. You need to determine if the player was trying to make a legitimate attempt to block the shot. If you determine that he was trying to make a legit block--you've got nothing, no matter how forcefully he hits the board. On the other hand, if you determine the player was trying to vent frustration--maybe he got beat badly by the shooter--or if the player is trying to draw attention to himself, then you give a T.

Notice I did not mention Basket interference--hitting the backboard has NOTHING to do with BI. So you have a T or nothing.

[BillyMac]

Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference nor is it goaltending and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard so forcefully that 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. When a player simply attempts to block a shot and accidentally slaps the backboard it is neither a violation nor is it a technical foul.

[Adam]

Billy. good answer, but it's a good answer to a different question.

[jdmara]

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know BI could not be called on a slapped backboard.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know BI could not be called on a slapped backboard.

You're killing me. Now I might have to apologize to Billy.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're killing me. Now I might have to apologize to Billy.

I guess I'll have to apologize to you then. Although I've been doing basketball for quite a few years (about 5), I still don't claim to know a lot. HA! I'm really a baseball umpire turned basketball official who calls a consistent game. Although most think it's consistently bad

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I'm really a baseball umpire turned basketball official who calls a consistent game. Although most think it's consistently bad.

From my local board's Guidelines For Evaluation:

CONSISTENCY
Is consistent in all calls regardless of situation or point of time in the game. For example consistency in the determination of a block vs. a charge.

It sounds like we need to offer you membership on our board.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rsox34

...

If a poster from New Hampshire, with the Forum name rsox34, means what I think it means, welcome to the Forum. Either that, or ChuckElias is in the witness protection program, has relocated to New Hampshire, and is posting under an alias. In either case, go Red Sox.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Case play 9.2.2C is clear on this.

NFHS 9.2.2 Situation C: A1 scores a basket. After the ball goes through the net, B1grabs it and makes a move toward the end line as though preparing to make a throw-in. However, B1 never legally steps out of bounds, both feet remain inbounds. B1 immediately passes the ball up the court to a fast-breaking teammate, who scores a basket.
Ruling: Cancel Team B's goal, throw-in violation on B1. The ball was at B1's disposal after the made basket to make a throw-in. B1 must be out of bounds to make a legal throw-in. (7-4-3; 7-5-7)

[JS 20]

I had this same situation earlier in the year and posted my question on this forum. B1 hits a shot, A1 catches directly under the net after it goes through, makes NO attempt to get OB, throws an outlet pass to A2 who goes up court. I hit the whistle and signal a throw-in violation. I don't feel 9.2.2 C covers my situation or yours b/c the player doesn't make an attempt to get OB, however I still say this is a violation. If you disagree with me, what if before you can blow it dead, the defense fouls? Then there's a problem. So I say you have a violation for not having a legal throw in.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From my local board's Guidelines For Evaluation:

CONSISTENCY
Is consistent in all calls regardless of situation or point of time in the game. For example consistency in the determination of a block vs. a charge.

It sounds like we need to offer you membership on our board.

Boy was I asleep when I wrote that Yikes! I think I will decline the offer though

[rsox34]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If a poster from New Hampshire, with the Forum name rsox34, means what I think it means, welcome to the Forum. Either that, or ChuckElias is in the witness protection program, has relocated to New Hampshire, and is posting under an alias. In either case, go Red Sox.

..I am a big Red Sox fan--since 1966/birth--and am a bigger David "Big Papi" Ortiz fan. My local paper--the Lawrence Eagle Tribune--published a story about me during its "Red Sox Fan of the Day" series during the 2007 post-season. If you Google my surname--Collings--and Eagle Tribune, you can see a photo of me. I am passionate about the Red Sox and basketball officiating.