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.