Inbounding and backboard slapping
 

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. :confused: :confused: 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

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.

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!

Slapping the Backboard
 

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.

Another Myth Bites The Dust ...
 

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.

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

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.

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 :D

Give That Kid A Contract ...
 

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.

Another Fan ???
 

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.

9.2.2c
 

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)

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.

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

Yes, you are correct...
 

..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.

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.

Why would the T cause the ball to become dead? It's still a try and teh ball doesn't become dead until the try ends.

So, the basket counts.

Plus, it's also BI.

Well, I guess another myth bites the dust. :D

Isn't the BI simultaneous to the "T"? Thus the try ended with the BI. Iow, the ball does become dead at the exact same time as the "T" is called, but it is the concurrent BI that makes it dead, not the "T".

I know it's semantics and that you already knew that, but I wanted to point it out to Billy.

Billy, if you want a cite for that, see the last sentence of case book play 4.41.4SitA.

Good Citation ...
 

9.11.1 Situation B: While the ball is touching the ring of the basket on a field-goal attempt, B1 grasps the ring when there is no threat of injury.
Ruling: This is a double infraction and both acts are penalized. It is both basket interference and a technical foul. The moment the hand touched the ring, it was basket interference. When the player grasped the ring, a technical foul occurred. Award two points to Team A, followed by two free throws and a division line throw-in. (10-3-4 Exception)

Thanks for the citation. It makes this situation a lot clearer, and doesn't leave me scratching my head. This case play makes it seem like the touch came first, basket interference, ball dead, award points, and the grab came immediately after, grabbing during dead ball, technical foul, two shots, ball at division line, foul added to player, and team total.

Thanks for your effort and research. I knew something about my interpretation seemed odd, because it was wrong.

http://www.therealmartha.com/brightspots/anidog6.gif

I went back and edited my post. I should have said "grabbed" instead of "touched". There was no touch followed by a grab...just a grab of the net. The grabbing of the net is a BI violation if it happens when the ball is on the ring. The ball becomes dead at that time. Grabbing the net and shaking the ring is also a technical foul. The BI violation and the technical foul occurred simultaneously and both acts are penalized accordingly. That's what the case play cited basically is saying.

Too Much Information ???
 

I thought that your previous posts cleared up this situation, and my incorrect interpretation, in my mind. Now, I am confused again.

In order to grab something, don't you have to touch it (make contact with it) first? You can touch something without grabbing it, but, you can't grab something without touching it first.

I'm going to take chance at being ridiculed here, but I don't believe that these acts, a violation, and a foul, are simultaneous, as you state above. I believe that the touch, and violation, came first, and the grab, and foul, came immediately, but not simultaneously, after the violation. I also believe that the ball was dead, by the violation, when the foul, the grab, occurred, but it's a technical foul to grab the basket at any time, live ball, or dead ball, except when preventing an injury.

I do agree with you that both acts are penalized accordingly.

There might be a better word than "confused" but....

I'll give it one last try.

1) Under the rules concerning BI, there is no differentiation between touching the net or grabbing the net. Both are violations. See rule 4-6-2. Therefore, whether you "touch" the net or you "grab" the net while the ball is on the ring, you are committing a BI violation in both cases. Touching = grabbing iow. They are regarded as the exact same thing under this rule.

2) Under rule 10-3-4, it is a technical foul to "grab" the net. It is not a technical foul to "touch" the net. Touching does <b>NOT</b> equal grabbing iow. They are <b>NOT</b> the exact same thing under this rule.

Sooooooo.....to sum up......if you <b>GRAB</b> the net while the ball is on the ring, you <b>simultaneously</b> commit a BI violation under #1 above <b>AND</b> you also get a technical foul under #2 above.

If you only <b>touch</b> the net while the ball is on the ring, you get charged with BI under #1 but do <b>NOT</b> get a technical foul under #2.

I have no idea how to make it any clearer than that.

Thanks For Your Patience ...
 

No confusion with 1).

No confusion with 2).

No confusion with: If you only <b>touch</b> the net while the ball is on the ring, you get charged with BI under #1 but do <b>NOT</b> get a technical foul under #2.

Problem with: If you <b>GRAB</b> the net while the ball is on the ring, you <b>simultaneously</b> commit a BI violation under #1 above <b>AND</b> you also get a technical foul under #2 above. Specifically with the word simultaneously. I don't believe that these acts, a violation, and a foul, are simultaneous. I believe that the touch, and violation, came first, and the grab, and foul, came immediately, but not simultaneously, after the violation. 9.11.1B states "The moment the hand touched the ring, it was basket interference. When the player grasped the ring, a technical foul occurred." The word "moment" in the first sentence, and the word "when" in the second sentence, seem to imply that these are not simultaneous acts. Note that I said "seem" and "imply", I'm still not 100% sure.

I know that you said "one last try", and I would have no problem with the lack of a followup response from you, you've been patient enough with me, but is there anyway that you can, at least, consider, that the violation, and foul, are not truly simultaneous, but the rules still allow us, as you pointed out several posts ago, to penalize both acts accordingly.

You've already corrected my incorrect interpretation of this situation, we penalize both acts accordingly. Thanks. I would like to be in 100% agreement with you. We're almost there. The word simultaneous is the only thing keeping me from being in 100% agreement with you.

Since both infractions are penalized, what difference does it make it they occurred simultaneously or one immediately followed the other?

Closure Please ....
 

It's not a big deal. If simultaneous, then the foul occurred during a live ball. If not simultaneous, the foul occurred during a dead ball. I'm on my local board's training committee, and one of the first things that we teach new officials, because it's so important, it the difference between a live ball, and a dead ball, and how a ball become live, and how a ball becomes dead. But, your right. In the grand scheme of basketball rules, and interpretations, this is the least of an official's problems. I just need to get some closure on this.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefXoHv.../nobigdeal.JPG

NO!!!!

The <b>instant</b> that you <b>grab</b> the net when the ball is on the ring, you <b>simultaneously</b> commit basket interference and a technical foul. The rules that I cited--rules 4-6-1 and 10-3-4-- very explicitly tell you that. The ball also becomes dead <b>instantly</b> on the concurrent basket interference violation. That's rule 6-7-9.

You not only have to know the rules; you have to understand them.

Thanks For Trying To Straighten Me Out ...
 

Thanks for the followup. Thanks for setting me straight on the double penalty in this situation. As hard as it is for me to disagree with someone with your knowledge of the rules, and interpretations, I'm sticking with my opinion that in milliseconds, the official thinks "touch-basket interference, grab-technical foul", and blows the whistle once. I also have the opinion that the grab did not cause the ball to be dead, it was already dead with the basket interference. I'm no longer going to try to convince you otherwise because I'm probably wrong. But, not due to lack of trying, and I thank you for that, you haven't convinced me 100%.

Thanks for straightening me out on the penalty, points awarded for basket interference, two foul shots for the technical foul, ball at division line opposite the table, foul added to personal, and team, totals. Thanks to you, at least I have that part right now.