After dunk board tap

[asdf]

Contacting the board after a two-handed dunk is intentional.

If the dunk was from the very front of the basket, both hands would have to be released from the rim and travel 15 inches to the surface of the backboard.

If the dunk was from the side, the player would then have to turn his body and have one hand travel no less than 6 inches to the glass, with the other traveling upwards of 15 inches to the glass.

This is in violation of 10-3-4b is should always be penalized with a technical foul.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by asdf

Contacting the board after a two-handed dunk is intentional.

This is in violation of 10-3-4b is should always be penalized with a technical foul.

Are you sure about this? Because thats not the way I read 10-3-4. Refer back to BillyMac's post which I agree with. If you replace should with May I would then agree with your statement.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

Are you sure about this? Because thats not the way I read 10-3-4. Refer back to BillyMac's post which I agree with. If you replace should with May I would then agree with your statement.

100% sure......

SECTION 3 -- PLAYER TECHINCAL

A player shall not....


ART. 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.


10-3-6 Refers to unsporting acts, noted in article 6(a-h),"but not limited to"... Since 10-3-4b specifies intentionally slapping or striking the backboard, you apply the penalty for the specific violation of 10-3-4b.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The intent is the goal or objective at which the action aimed. Merely stating that an action had an objective does not specify the inten

The motive is the desire or feeling that brought about the action.

Intention is part of the rational explanation of an action, motive part of the causal explanation.

Never mess with a Jesuit educated official!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by asdf

Contacting the board after a two-handed dunk is intentional.

If the dunk was from the very front of the basket, both hands would have to be released from the rim and travel 15 inches to the surface of the backboard.

If the dunk was from the side, the player would then have to turn his body and have one hand travel no less than 6 inches to the glass, with the other traveling upwards of 15 inches to the glass.

This is in violation of 10-3-4b is should always be penalized with a technical foul.

Disagree with above and agree with SmokeEater.

Whether the act of slapping the board was "intentional" or not is always a judgment call. See NFHS case book play 10.3.5COMMENT--"The purpose of the rule is 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 as a means of venting frustration MAY be assessed a technical foul pursuant to rule 10-3-7."

Note the usage of the highlighted "may". That confirms Smokie's take on the call.

[Nevadaref]

This is a clear technical foul. Even the NCAA was instructing its officials to penalize this post-dunk backboard slap a few years ago. In fact,
a player from Syracuse was charged with a T for this in their first round tournament game back in 2006 when they lost to Vermont. Amusing to see those two schools matched up again this year.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree with above and agree with SmokeEater.

Whether the act of slapping the board was "intentional" or not is always a judgment call. See NFHS case book play 10.3.5COMMENT--"The purpose of the rule is 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 as a means of venting frustration MAY be assessed a technical foul pursuant to rule 10-3-7."

Note the usage of the highlighted "may". That confirms Smokie's take on the call.

My opinion is that "10-3-5 Comment" has nothing to do with this play. Nor does it trump the penalty (A player shall not") for 10-3-4b.

The offenseive player dunks the basketball, takes his hands off the rim and makes intentional contact with the backboard.

No way this is going to be accidental.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Never mess with a Jesuit educated official!

OK, but I'm not sure I know any!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Never mess with a Jesuit educated official!

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK, but I'm not sure I know any!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by asdf

My opinion is that "10-3-5 Comment" has nothing to do with this play. Nor does it trump the penalty (A player shall not") for 10-3-4b.

And you're using only part of rule 10-3-4(b)...the part that you think backs up your opinion. That takes the intent of the rule completely out of context.

Rule 10-3-4(b) in full reads "A player shall not illegally contact the backboard/ring by intentionally slapping or striking the backboard."

It is legal to unintentionally slap or strike the backboard, and it always has been. You have to read the complete rule, not one word. The word "shall" comes into play ONLY if the act is ruled as being intentional. It is and always has been up to the calling official to determine whether the act was intentional or unintentional. And that's also why it is always a judgment call.

My suggestion for you is to take this one to your state office or interpreter and get their stance on it. Maybe you'll believe them. Of course, maybe they'll agree with you too. I doubt it very much...but...that's only my opinion also.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by SAJ

key word...it's left to the judgment of the official. if it was "shall" then i'd throw down the hammer with no impunity...

And if there is no legit reason to slap the backboard, your judgment should result in a technical foul.

NOBODY has ever dunked the basketball and then UNINTENTIONALLY slapped the backboard with two hands. It's a T, every time.

The things we argue about here are so stupid sometimes.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK, but I'm not sure I know any!

Oops, I may have you confused with another poster who went to a Jesuit HS

in Cleveland.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And you're using only part of rule 10-3-4(b)...the part that you think backs up your opinion. That takes the intent of the rule completely out of context.

Rule 10-3-4(b) in full reads "A player shall not illegally contact the backboard/ring by intentionally slapping or striking the backboard."

It is legal to unintentionally slap or strike the backboard, and it always has been. You have to read the complete rule, not one word. The word "shall" comes into play ONLY if the act is ruled as being intentional. It is and always has been up to the calling official to determine whether the act was intentional or unintentional. And that's also why it is always a judgment call.

My suggestion for you is to take this one to your state office or interpreter and get their stance on it. Maybe you'll believe them. Of course, maybe they'll agree with you too. I doubt it very much...but...that's only my opinion also.

+1 Would you autograph my rules book for me?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by fullor30

+1 Would you autograph my rules book for me?

LOL....I'd probably screw that up too.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And if there is no legit reason to slap the backboard, your judgment should result in a technical foul.

NOBODY has ever dunked the basketball and then UNINTENTIONALLY slapped the backboard with two hands. It's a T, every time.

The things we argue about here are so stupid sometimes.

Add me to the list of those who see it this way.