Inbounding and backboard slapping

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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 outstretched 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?

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.