modification of 10.3.4

[rsl]

case 10.3.4 says if a player goes for a block and instead strikes the backboard but the shot still goes in, there is no violation and the basket is good.

What if ... a defensive player goes for a block and instead strikes the backboard, the shot does not go in, and (in the referee's opinion) the inadvertent slap to the backboard moved the basket enough to cause the try to be unsuccessful.

I still have a no call here, but some colleagues think that either a T or a basket interference is in order. Basket interference requires contact with the ball, ring or net, and I think a T requires some intent to gain an advantage, as in the comment below.

What do you say?

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.

[Adam]

I see no reason for the change.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rsl

What if ... a defensive player goes for a block and instead strikes the backboard, the shot does not go in, and (in the referee's opinion) the inadvertent slap to the backboard moved the basket enough to cause the try to be unsuccessful.

I still have a no call here, but some colleagues think that either a T or a basket interference is in order. Basket interference requires contact with the ball, ring or net, and I think a T requires some intent to gain an advantage, as in the comment below.

What do you say?

I say that "some colleagues" don't know the proper application of the rule. I also think that you shouldn't really worry about your idea of "intent to gain an advantage" and just use the intent outlined by the rulesmakers. Their intent is that we have to judge whether a player is really trying to block a shot or not. If so...no "T". If not..."T:. Don't make it any harder than it needs to be.

JMO

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by rsl

case 10.3.4 says if a player goes for a block and instead strikes the backboard but the shot still goes in, there is no violation and the basket is good.

What if ... a defensive player goes for a block and instead strikes the backboard, the shot does not go in, and (in the referee's opinion) the inadvertent slap to the backboard moved the basket enough to cause the try to be unsuccessful.

I still have a no call here, but some colleagues think that either a T or a basket interference is in order. Basket interference requires contact with the ball, ring or net, and I think a T requires some intent to gain an advantage, as in the comment below.

What do you say?

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.

Clearly, the rule as written (with the further clarification of the cases) does not permit a penalty in your case. I will submit to you that I would be fine with a modification of the rule, here. I have seen cases such as the one you describe, BUT since as you also noted the items necessary for the technical or basket inference are not present, the "disadvantage" to the offense cannot be penalized. The defender did NOT intentionally hit the backboard -- it was a byproduct of attempting to block the shot. The defender was not venting frustration. The defender did not get close to the basket/ring. Therefore, none of the illegalities are present. BUT, the offense did lose a basket.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Clearly, the rule as written (with the further clarification of the cases) does not permit a penalty in your case. I will submit to you that I would be fine with a modification of the rule, here. I have seen cases such as the one you describe, BUT since as you also noted the items necessary for the technical or basket inference are not present, the "disadvantage" to the offense cannot be penalized. The defender did NOT intentionally hit the backboard -- it was a byproduct of attempting to block the shot. The defender was not venting frustration. The defender did not get close to the basket/ring. Therefore, none of the illegalities are present. BUT, the offense did lose a basket.

Maybe, and maybe not. There is no way for sure to tell that a ball was going to go through the basket until it does.

[doubleringer]

The problem isn't the rule, the problem is that there are too many officials out there that do not understand how to apply the rule correctly.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

The problem isn't the rule, the problem is that there are too many officials out there that do not understand how to apply the rule correctly.

While it may be the case that too many officials do not understand/know the rule, that doesn't automatically mean there is no problem with the rule. Perhaps the BI rule should be changed to include contact with the board. That is certainly a point worthy of discussion.

[Kelvin green]

I would suggest that if there were a modification of the NFHS Rule about causing the ring to vibtrate that you would have a bigger disparity in the interpretation of the rule than we now have the way it is written.

I would like some intermediate penalty but not sure it would work very well....

The NBA has such a rule ....
h. Vibrate the rim, net or backboard so as to cause the ball to make an unnatural bounce, or bend or move the rim to an off-center position
when the ball is touching the ring or passing
through.

I can just see all the high school officials trying to figure out what unnatural bounce means....NBA has a limited officiating staff with lots of control...NFHS we have too many guys and frankly would open up a can of worms that would be worse than the rule we have now

[refiator]

If it is a legitimate try for a block and the backboard is slapped, no violation.
This would only be a "T" if it were a deliberate act with no play on the ball.
I think I have seen that twice in 22 years.......

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by refiator

If it is a legitimate try for a block and the backboard is slapped, no violation.
This would only be a "T" if it were a deliberate act with no play on the ball.
I think I have seen that twice in 22 years.......

Really? I see it quite often

I had it twice in one game two years ago. In both cases, the shot went up on one side of the rim and the defender slapped the backboard on the opposite side of the rim. Easy call both times. And yes, each team committed the act.