I don't agree with all of your reasoning
 

I agree with the rarity of the situation. However, there is no more subjective judgment involved with hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim or in the basket than touching the net or the rim under the same set of circumstances. If the ball is on the rim and the defense touches the net, don't you call BI? How is touching the net less subjective than touching the backboard? It's not.

I wasn't aware you were asking for the backboard to be considered just like the rim in this case. I thought you wanted us to be able to call it if the slap affected the shot. That would be subjective.

If you're wanting the backboard to be off limits like the rim, I think that's too draconian for the rarity of the play. The other thing here is that in this play, the backboard is rarely, if ever, hit while the ball is in the cylinder.

I have seen this type of play happen more and more frequently. We now have to subjectively decide if the slap of the backboard was intentional or an attempt to block the shot. If we could simply call BI for a slap against the board that missed the ball, BUT the slap caused the basket to move slightly while the ball was on it would seem to be a fairly simple solution.

How many of you are going to call goaltending on the offensive team -- knowing what the penalty is for goaltending?

I've seen some backboards dance pretty good after a attempted block and in my opinion caused the ball to roll off the rim. You have no call to make but there is an advantage given to one team in this case which is not covered in the rules.
As for the not calling goaltending on the offensive team, I am confused:confused: why wouldn't we want to call that if it happens?

It's covered in the rules: it's specifically allowed.

I see you are after me today. the rules are intended to be a level playing field.correct? How is it you are not allowed to touch the rim or net and cause it to move into the ball alltering the shot but you can do the same thing by just contacting the back board. does that make any sense? I guess it is a advantage for both teams to use.:)

The Fifth Element ...
 

I've heard an interpreter add a fifth element: the ball must be outside the cylinder. I guess his reasoning is that if it's inside the cylinder, then it's basket interference rather than goaltending.

Comments?

Sounds Good to me
 

Although, I don't really believe we need to add a 5th element because the definition of BI covers this scenario. But if someone wants to use this to help them remember, go for it.

Didn't mean to come across as "after" you.

What do you suggest?

1. Treat the backboard like the rim?
2. leave a subjective decision to the official on whether it altered or affected the shot?
3. another option?

This is one of those situations that may actually be easier to see from the bench, where the viewer is stationary. On the move, a little rim wiggle is going to be more difficult to detect. And I still contend whether or not the ball would have gone in had the hitting of the backboard not caused the rim to vibrate, is going to be a pretty subjective judgment most of the time.

No more so than the net or rim
 

I am not suggesting that the official decide if the contact with the backboard affected the shot any more than an official judges the affect of contacting the net or rim. All I'm suggesting is that the same judgment be used when the defense hits the backboard. Was the ball on the rim or in the basket when contact occurred? It requires no more judgment than we use in the other BI scenarios. Absolutely no more. Zero!

OPtion 1
 

No one has suggested making this require any more judgment than what is already needed for the other BI scenarios. The backboard needs to be treated the same as the rim and net. It can have as much an affect as hitting the net. However, I'm not asking that the official judge the affect. Only whether or not the backboard was hit while the ball was on the rim or in the basket. Just like we do today for the rim and net.

I don't like it, but I understand what you're suggesting now.

This wouldn't solve anything, because 99% of these rare plays involve the backboard being slapped before the ball gets into the cylinder.

Just Asking ???
 

I'm not sure of this, and I don't have my books from that far back, but when I first started 29 years ago, didn't we have a similar rule. If contact with the backboard caused it to "move" (maybe the word was "vibrate") during a try, then we called a technical foul, even if it was a legitimate attempt at a block? And, again, I'm not sure of this, back then a touch by a defensive player ended the try, so if ball was touched during a block attempt, the try ended, and no matter how much the backboard moved, or vibrated, a technical foul couldn't be called. I can remember coaches questioning a noncall, with me responding, "Coach, the ball was touched." If the defensive player attempted to block a shot, missed the block, and slapped the backboard so hard that it vibrated during the try, then a technical foul was called, but, like today, we couldn't award the basket if the shot missed due to the vibration.

Oh, those were the good old days. Now let me tell you all a story about something called a 28 foot hash mark. Or would you rather hear a science lesson about an anomaly in the space time continuum called a change of status?