After dunk board tap
 

I saw this last night during a local high school game on TV.

Two handed dunk. Player (in a clearly intentional act) taps the backboard with both hands on the way down.

So, whack or no whack?

The way i'm picturing this, the player would have to pull himself up on the rim in order to slap the backboard on his way down. Probably a HTBT. If it's a big show, T em up.

I would give a T without hesitation at the high school level, unless he was in some ways protecting himself.

Peace

Tap, Contact, Slap, Strike, Force ???
 

NFHS 10-3-4: A player shall not: 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.

In order to penalize on 10-3-4-A, "The Ralph Sampson Rule", the player would have had to had gained an advantage. In my opinion, there is no advantage gained by doing this, so we can assume that 10-3-4-A does not apply.

Now we're left with 10-3-4-B. To me the words "Slap", and "Strike", seem to imply that the act is done with some type of "Force", in some cases, but not all cases, causing the backboard, or ring, to vibrate. Did this "Tap" have any "Force" behind it? If so, then go ahead and penalize under 10-3-4-B. If not, then play basketball.

10.3.4 does not exactly address a "Tap", but it might shed some light on this situation:

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.

What was the intent?

The intent is that he had a purpose or aim to do so(smack backboard).

Now if you want to know his motivation, that's a different story.

It appeared to be one of those "too cool for school" things that kids do. He dunked and on the way past tapped the board with two hands. You know, the way kids do on a layup while warming up.

And he did *not* pull himself up.

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

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.

I'm not sure that answers my question, but it sounds borderline to me. I don't think I'd whack unless it was obvious showboating or taunting.

Like I mentioned elsewhere, I saw an NCAA D1 guy and my HS partner (he was the lead, 2-person) whack the same thing earlier this year. Just thought it would be interesting to throw out there.

What did the officials in this game do?

Nothing.

Then they missed it. :(

"A player who strikes either backboard so forcefully it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt
to draw attention to the player...may be assessed
a technical foul pursuant to Rule 10-3-6."

Since there is ZERO basketball purpose to dunking and then striking, and obviously it did draw attention, this looks like a no-brainer to me.

However, the fact that this happened this late in the season leads me to assume that it likely had taken place all season without penalty. A regional or state championship level game is probably not the best venue to make the point. Here in NC a significant number of our points of emphasis come from the observations of what takes place at the regional and state level tournaments. Something like this would likely find mentioning in the pre-season clinics, which is probably best case.

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...

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.

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.

Never mess with a Jesuit educated official!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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

in Cleveland.

+1 Would you autograph my rules book for me?:D

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.