Basket interference v. goal tending

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

I had a scrimmage the other night where if the defender had hit the backboard it could have effected the ball going in the basket.

Then it shouldn't matter since the defense was already penalized by causing the ball to go in the basket.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Then it shouldn't matter since the defense was already penalized by causing the ball to go in the basket.

I had a scrimmage the other night where if the defender had hit the backboard it could have affected the result of the play.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by rwest

I had a scrimmage the other night where if the defender had hit the backboard it could have affected the result of the play.

But apparently the defender didn't hit the backboard.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

But apparently the defender didn't hit the backboard.

However, if he did it would have been with enough force, in my opinion, to have an affect on the outcome.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

However, if he did it would have been with enough force, in my opinion, to have an affect on the outcome.

I think it's such a rare event the rules committee would rather not include the backboard in the BI rule.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think it's such a rare event the rules committee would rather not include the backboard in the BI rule.

I also think that to enact such a provision would cause defenders to become somewhat tentative when making perfectly legitimate defensive plays for fear they may accidentally give the opponents a basket. All over a fairly rare situation that would even more rarely result in a violation. And a violation that would involve a far more subjective judgment than any other part of the BI rule.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I also think that to enact such a provision would cause defenders to become somewhat tentative when making perfectly legitimate defensive plays for fear they may accidentally give the opponents a basket. All over a fairly rare situation that would even more rarely result in a violation. And a violation that would involve a far more subjective judgment than any other part of the BI rule.

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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I also think that to enact such a provision would cause defenders to become somewhat tentative when making perfectly legitimate defensive plays for fear they may accidentally give the opponents a basket. All over a fairly rare situation that would even more rarely result in a violation. And a violation that would involve a far more subjective judgment than any other part of the BI rule.

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?