Goaltending???

[iref4him]

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??

[Scrapper1]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Eastshire]

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.)

[tref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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?

[jritchie]

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!

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by tref

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?

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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).

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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).

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

A player shall not illegally contact the backboard/ring by:

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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).

What about this part of the OP?

Originally Posted by OP

...Blue 44 smacks the backboard, unrelated to the shot....

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.

[iref4him]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by iref4him

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?