B1 attempts to block a shot. He doesn't make contact with the ball, but does contact the backboard. The contact with the backboard was a result of the block attempt. Anything?

Partners says he has to contact the ball on the block attempt or it's a T.

If it is a legitimate block attempt and contact is made on the backboard, no call. If in your judgement the slap on the backboard is deliberate... T for two (shots):D

Legitimate attempt to block a shot, no matter how hard he hits the board I got nothing.

It's partners like that who don't know such simple rules that give the rest of us a bad reputation. Tell your partner to buy a rule book, read it and remember what he read.

Then puke on his shoes.

So many officials. Plenty of ugly striped shirts and ill-fitting pants! :D

My partner was fine to work with. Had a good game in all aspects. But considering he is also a JuCo official, I was a little surprised he didn't know the rule.

Tell your partner to read the casebook too, because this exact play is covered in the NFHS Casebook.

Did the Ball Go In?
 

Legitimate attempt to block a shot, no matter how hard he hits the board I got nothing.
__________________________________________________ ______
I disagree. If he is slapping the backboard and the ball doesn't go in, isn't it basket interference? It depends on where the ball is at the time.

Re: Did the Ball Go In?
 

OK. We agree to disagree.

Our rules guru says what I said above.

Here's the rule

ART. 6 . . .
a.
b. 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, intentionally slap or strike the backboard or cause the ring to vibrate.

Here's the case

CONTACTING THE BACKBOARD
10.3.6 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 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 10-3-8.

I don't see where we can penalize a player making a legitimate block attempt for striking the backboard.

Re: Did the Ball Go In?
 

Hi twins. Welcome to the board. Because your new here, I'm turning off my normal sarcasm. (Don't tell anyone I've gone soft, tho! ;) ). But here is something to file away: in HS and NCAA, touching the backboard, is NEVER basket interference. It's not goaltending, either. Never.

Go to Rule 4 (Definitions) and look up basket interference. The definitions are very explicit and touching the backboard isn't in there. Never.

I don't mean to be demeaning, so I hope I haven't come across that way. (Remember, Never!!)

Chuck

Re: Re: Did the Ball Go In?
 

Why should you penalize the shooter for making a LEGITIMATE SHOT attempt, only to be taken away from someone slapping the backboard. What I am saying is that it has to be pretty hard to keep the ball from going in. Gotta be a T if is that hard.

Re: Re: Re: Did the Ball Go In?
 

No it doesn't...read the rule again...it doesn't say anything about how hard the board is hit...it does say that if it is a legitimate block attempt, we call nothing...do you remember the Ted Valentine/Bobby Knight fiasco several years ago - Bobby Knight had the same take on this rule that you do...he was wrong then, you are wrong now...

And to Chuck - I was very impressed with your self-control...what do you think of the kid getting your Sox a new second baseman??

The Hot Stove!
 

I happened to like Sanchez, but he clearly was not producing enough at the plate. I thought he a pretty decent gloveman, but that's just not enough anymore. The fact is, the Sox have had problems at second base ever since Duquette traded away Luis Alicea and tried to replace him with the wife-beater from Montreal. I can't even remember his name anymore. I think Lou Merloni could probably handle the job, but he too has struggled at the plate, and Pokey Reece was way overrated and just never panned out. So while something was needed, I'll wait and see. Didn't cost much to get him, tho, so probably nothing lost even if Walker doesn't work out. Last season was his best year in a pretty non-descript career. So my guess is that he'll return to non-descript next season. But we'll see, I guess.

Chuck

A thought to mull over on. Let's say you got on a ladder, put your hand on the rim and had a player simulate slapping the backboard (obviously this is intentional but the idea is to discern if this vibrates the ring). Now you find out that this vibrates the ring. And you do this ten times and each time it vibrates. Can you now call a T based on that knowledge or should write Federation and ask them to change the rule. Just a thought.

It's clear what the Feds interpretation is but may be they overlooked this or really do not know what causes the ring to vibrate.

it's all about intent
 

10-3-6b 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, intentionally slap or strike the backboard or cause the ring to vibrate.

I interpret the word intentionally in the last clause of 10-3-6b to apply to both striking the backboard and causing the ring to vibrate. Therefore, if I don't believe the player is intentionally trying to cause the ring to vibrate, I don't call the T.
Of course, I have no doubt that any slap of the backboard, intentional or not, does cause the ring to vibrate, and therefore think that it would be better if the NFHS clarified that the vibrating the ring must be intentional to be a technical foul with a case book play.
Until then, I will continue to read the rule this way.