The Official Forum - After dunk board tap

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - After dunk board tap (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/57544-after-dunk-board-tap.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 668393)

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

Are you saying that this is NOT a judgment call? Or are you saying that this is a technical foul in YOUR judgment?

Please clarify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 668385)

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.

We agree on what the rule reads.

My contention, which is backed up by my state interpreter(s), it that after dunking, contact with the backboard as in the original post (two hands) is undoubtetly intentional.

A player isn't going to reach for the board if someone is under them, they are hanging onto the ring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdf (Post 668405)

My contention, which is backed up by my state interpreter(s), it that after dunking, contact with the backboard as in the original post (two hands) is undoubtetly intentional.

.

Imo your state interpreter is interpreting the rule wrongly. He/she is saying that it isn't a judgment call. That's just wrong.

Note that I'm not saying that the judgment is wrong. I'm saying that it is a judgment though.

What state, if you don't mind me asking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 668386)

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. :rolleyes:

I'm not arguing this...i'd give a T. Just saying there could be instances where I might not...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 668409)

Why you getting hung up on the word judgement?

In my judgement, as well as all of our interpreters from top to bottom, this act is always going to be intentional.

We had this discussion in an interp's meeting a few years back. The guy who brought the issue forward could not give an example where this would be unintentional. We wasted 20 minutes on the subject.......

The state I am from has no relevance in the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdf (Post 668415)

I'm hung up on the word "judgment" because you are inferring that judgment does not apply to this particular call. Imo that's wrong. There may definitely be cases where an official may JUDGE that the slapping is unintentional. That judgment is completely up to the calling official and no one else. And if that official judges that the slapping was unintentional, then they have rules backing to NOT call a technical foul in that case. And the rules backing is NFHS rule 10-3-4(b) and case book play 10.3.5COMMENT.

Just because you say that in your judgment the act will always be intentional, that doesn't mean that everybody in the world has to agree with your judgment.

And if your state interpreter feels that is wrong, then in my opinion your state interpreter does not understand the rule.

Is that clear enough for you?

And note again that I'm not questioning your judgment. I'm questioning your inference that it isn't a judgment call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fullor30 (Post 668387)

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

OK, no, I didn't go there. I thought maybe you knew about my time spent with the CHC...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 668423)

Not to speak for JR, but to me this all comes back around to your statement that rule 10-3-4b "shall always" be enforced by a technical. Which I was trying to point out is not a correct statement. It may be a requirement for the OP but not every time.