Causing the ring to vibrate

[Vinski]

Rule 10-3-4 states…
A player shall not:
ART. 4 . . . Illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
b. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing 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.

I’m cool with the backboard slapping part of this, but I’m not clear about the causing the ring to vibrate part. There are two areas of this that I need your input on.
1. If A1 is shooting from the perimeter and before the ball is even close to the basket B1 grabs and pulls the net or maybe just strikes the ring which causes it to vibrate, it appears that the rule is saying that this is a technical foul. I’m pretty sure that’s what it’s saying, but for some reason my brain synapses don’t want to connect on this one unless someone else says something like, “Dude, that’s what is says doesn’t it”.

2. If A1 shoots and the ball is on the ring and B1 grabs the net and causes the ring to vibrate, it appears that this rule would also indicate a technical foul. However, the rules of basket interference are in play as well. Off the cuff, I would simply go with the BI. Is this correct or would we call the T as well.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Rule 10-3-4 states…
A player shall not:
ART. 4 . . . Illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
b. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing 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.

I’m cool with the backboard slapping part of this, but I’m not clear about the causing the ring to vibrate part. There are two areas of this that I need your input on.
1. If A1 is shooting from the perimeter and before the ball is even close to the basket B1 grabs and pulls the net or maybe just strikes the ring which causes it to vibrate, it appears that the rule is saying that this is a technical foul. I’m pretty sure that’s what it’s saying, but for some reason my brain synapses don’t want to connect on this one unless someone else says something like, “Dude, that’s what is says doesn’t it”.

2. If A1 shoots and the ball is on the ring and B1 grabs the net and causes the ring to vibrate, it appears that this rule would also indicate a technical foul. However, the rules of basket interference are in play as well. Off the cuff, I would simply go with the BI. Is this correct or would we call the T as well.

Case Book 10.3.4 comments that if it is intentional, it is a player technical. 10.3.4(b) is your sitch 2, but the ball is not on the ring. I believe all of the rules of BI and goaltending would apply. The technical is in addition to any "type 2" violations.

"Dude, if the action is intentional, thats what it is saying."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Case Book 10.3.4 comments that if it is intentional, it is a player technical.

10.3.4 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 10-3-6.

10-3-4: 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 causing 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.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

10.3.4(b) is your sitch 2, but the ball is not on the ring. I believe all of the rules of BI and goaltending would apply. The technical is in addition to any "type 2" violations.

In scenario 2, it would be BI if accidental/incidental or a T AND BI if intentional/exhibitional? …Is that even a word?

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Vinski

In scenario 2, it would be BI if accidental/incidental or a T AND BI if intentional/exhibitional? …Is that even a word?

IMO, that is correct.

[Raymond]

The key word is "intentional".

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

IMO, that is correct.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The key word is "intentional".

I can feel the synapses connecting now. Thanks for your input.