Goaltending???
 

A friend called me who was officiating a college game. Here is what he said happened.

White 12 is driving for a layup. White 12 shoots the ball which is tipped by defender Blue 22 after the White 12 released the ball. The ball continues and Blue 35 blocks the ball on the balls downward trajectory after the ball hits the backboard. After Blue 35 blocks the shot after the ball hits the backboard, Blue 44 smacks the backboard, unrelated to the shot. He said 'C' blew his whistle after Blue 44 smacked the backboard and gave him a technical foul. They got together and discussed what happened. He said they ruled that Blue 35 goaltended the ball and awarded White 2 points. Why? They knew they were late on calling the goaltend on Blue 35. They then penalized Blue 44 for smacking the backboard with a 'T'.

My question to him was - is it goaltending by the defense to block a tip shot by the defense on the ball's downward trajectory? If yes, Blue 35 goaltended. No one called the goaltend at the time it happened. The crew simply missed the goaltend. If the answer is that it is not goaltending after a tipped ball by the defense, they are okay.

I don't think you can penalize both the goaltending and the 'T' for smacking the backboard in the scenario he explained to me. The only way is to admit they were late on the goaltending and penalize Blue 44 with an unsporting 'T' during the dead ball. However, since the missed the goaltend (if it is goaltending), the crew could not correct it since it was not a correctable error. The only thing that should have been penalized is the smacking of the backboard.

I am looking for help here. Any thoughts??

A defensive touch of the ball does not end the try. So if the try then continues and it is blocked on its downward flight while it is still above the level of the rim and has a chance to enter the basket, then it is goaltending.

I think he is also asking if it is alright that the crew decided to call B35 for goaltending only after B44 was T'd up for smacking the backboard.

No idea for NCAA.

For NFHS, the ball is dead after the GT, no matter when they blow the whistle. So 10-3-4b cannot apply, and no T should be assessed.

I'll take a crack at this from a Fed perspective.

The attempted block by B22 does not end the try (4-41-4). B35's block is goaltending (4-22). Based on the description (blocked), I assume the ball had no further possibility of entering the basket ending the try.

B44's smack of the backboard is not a technical foul as there is no try in flight (10-3-4b).

The officials should have gotten together during the dead ball and determined that the goaltending had caused the try to end and awarded the points under the principle that the violation had occurred before the foul (indeed caused the activity to no longer be a foul).

As long as there wasn't a significant delay (more than a couple of seconds) between the goaltending and the whistle, I wouldn't consider this correcting an error.

If the T is actually for unsporting behavior rather than slapping the backboard, I again think the proximity of the stoppage to the violation allows the officials to make the call after conferencing as I don't believe the time has expired to call the violation yet. (Thus it is not yet an error.)

The comment under 10.3.4 says, 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.

Thoughts?

good call on the goaltending and on the unsporting T for slapping the backboard. I'm sure there wasn't more than a second elasped when the goaltending was missed, maybe just a slow whistle!:rolleyes:

For the most part, I think a backboard slap being penalized under 10-3-6 is going to happen outside the course of play.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the slapper if the ball is in the backboard area before I called an unsporting T.

Makes sense! I just wanted to put it out there, that a try doesnt have to be involved for it to be unsporting.

I don't have my FED books handy, but I don't think that's the correct parsing of the rule (iirc, it's one of those rules with multiple "or" clauses and it could be unclear to which the "while" clause applies).

No, but since a try was involved in the OP, and nothing else in the OP suggests unsporting behavior, I would not assess a TF under 10-3-6 (either).

It is but the other clauses aren't relevant here.

What about this part of the OP?

Reads to me that B44 slapped the other side of the backboard with no attempt to block a shot involved. That's a T, NCAA and Fed.

Thanks
 

Thanks for your input!! The crew was fortunate that the 'C' blew his whistle for the smack of the backboard!! If not, the game would have continued without a goaltending or a 'T'. IF Blue 44 did not slap the backboard, the crew would have missed the goaltend. The 'C' did not blow his whistle for goaltending, just for the smacking of the backboard.

As I thought...did the Blue coach make a stink about the delayed GT call?

Slapping the backboard is not in and of itself a T. You can in Fed slap the backboard so long as there is no try in flight and the ball is not touching the backboard or in the basket or the cylinder and the slap is not done in an unsporting manner.

There's an area between an attempted block and unsporting behavior that is allowable backboard slapping.

It's sounds like the OP was an unsporting incident though.

You think correctly. You can call a backboard slap at any time if you think the act was unsporting.

From POE #4 on backboard slapping from the 2008-09 FED rule book....
"The rules specify that intentionally slapping or striking the backboard is a technical. The spirit and intent of the rule is to penalize a player for drawing attention to themselves or as a means of venting frustration."

Iow it's a judgment call...and the slap in the OP also has to be a judgment call.

While that is true, you aren't calling the T based on rule 10-3-4 as it doesn't deal with unsporting acts, you're calling it based on 10-3-6.

And I was simply commenting on Bob's response to the above statement. Whether the try was in flight or not doesn't mean that a "T" still couldn't have been called against B44.... as Tref also correctly pointed out to you.

You judge the act, no matter whether that act was inside or outside the course of play. That's exactly what the FED told us to do in that POE that I cited.

Maybe you didn't intend it as such, but the sentence above leaves the impression that you can't call a "T" by rule for slapping the backboard while no try is in flight. You can but it is always a judgment call.

Yeah, communication error on my part. My point was that it had to be unsporting to call the T, a "basic" slap in this situation is not a T.

What do you mean by a "basic" slap as it applies to the OP?

Basic as opposed to unsporting. It wasn't immediately clear to me that the official felt the slap was itself unsporting as opposed to slaps being inherently unsporting.

It was clear what the official felt in the OP:

Obviously he felt if wasn't a "basic" slap.

No, it's not obvious at all. There are multiple ways to receive a T for slapping the backboard. The fact that he called a T does not tell us which rule he based his decision on.

Since they had not yet called goaltending, he could have felt the try was in flight and therefore penalized a basic slap.

What does the ball in flight have to do with a "basic slap" of the backboard? So if the ball is in flight you can't "basically" slap the backboard but if the ball isn't in flight it's alright to "basically slap the backboard? When did that become the criteria?

You have the hang of it now.

As long as you haven't violated 10-3-4b and you aren't being unsporting by "draw[ing] attention to [yourself] or [as] a means of venting frustration" (10.3.4 Comment), you haven't committed a technical foul.

And how is the rule worded for the unsporting portion of this discussion?

Parse it this way:

b. (1)Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or
(2)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.

IOW, it's only the "causing the ring to vibrate" part that deals with a try in flight or touching the backborad, ...

It can be read that way, but then the comment from 10.3.4 doesn't make any sense as there would never be a need to use 10-3-6 for the T.

That's the way I've always interpreted.

But I do want to know the wording for the "unsporting" act East is referring to. I still have 90 minutes before I can get to my books.

The only wording on unsporting slapping comes from 10.3.4 Comment. It's not address directly in 10-3-6. Slightly paraphrased

"draw[ing] attention to [yourself] or [as] a means of venting frustration" (10.3.4 Comment)

How does the entire comment for 10.3.4 read and how does 10-3-6 read?

Here:
Rule 10-3-6 doesn't even address the backboard, this is included in the "not limited to" portion of 10-3-6.

In practice, I can't imagine any time a player would slap the backboard without a try involved that wouldn't be ruled a technical foul. It's either an attempt to draw attention, or vent frustration. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen (never say never or always), I just can't imagine it.

I'm primarily thinking of a situation where the ball has already passed below the level of the rim so the try has ended.

The try may be over here, but it's still involved in the play.

I'm picturing one of two scenarios:
1. Try on the way down, B1 slaps the other side of the backboard. T
2. Try on the way down, B1 slaps the same side of the backboard. I'll likely assume he was trying to either block it or get the rebound.

For #1, I'd obviously use 10-3-6, but frankly, the coach isn't going to ask for a rule reference when you ring up his player for this.