Help

[tref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. These are examples of basket interference. It is legal to touch the ring or the net if the ball is above the ring and not touching the ring, even if the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is legal to hang on the ring if a player is avoiding an injury to himself or herself or another player.

The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending when a player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket. On most layups, the ball is going up after it contacts the backboard. It is legal to pin the ball against the backboard if it still on the way up and not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference nor is it goaltending and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard, during a tap, or a try, so forcefully that 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. When a player simply attempts to block a shot and accidentally slaps the backboard it is neither a violation nor is it a technical foul.

(NFHS Rules)

Absolutely, but some guys have to see it to believe it.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It is legal to touch the ring or the net if the ball is above the ring and not touching the ring, even if the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring.

A player who strikes a backboard, during a tap, or a try, so forcefully that 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.

Don't we have to qualify and/or supplement these a bit with 10-3-4?

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Don't we have to qualify and/or supplement these a bit with 10-3-4?

What needs to be qualified? What is incorrect about the statement? Billy pulled that particular statement from a "Commonly Misunderstood Rules" piece that he keeps.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

What needs to be qualified? What is incorrect about the statement? Billy pulled that particular statement from a "Commonly Misunderstood Rules" piece that he keeps.

It looks fine to me.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Welpe

It looks fine to me.

I know it's dangerous because the next 1,000 page novel might follow, but I'm curious as to what he meant by his statement. It looked fine to me as well.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I know it's dangerous because the next 1,000 page novel might follow, but I'm curious as to what he meant by his statement. It looked fine to me as well.

To quote a scholarly television production: "Here we go."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Welpe

To quote a scholarly television production: "Here we go."

To quote scholary JR....

[RandyBrown]

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

No.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

The first part of Billy's statement simply tells us it's not basket interference to contact the rim or net while the ball doesn't have the rim as its base...even if it's in the cylinder...it didn't say it was legal to grab the rim...rather it said touch. Of course we can always issue a technical foul if a player grabbed the rim to gain an advantage.

Billy's second point I believe comes straight from a recent POE. No need to qualify it with 10-3-4b. One is going to have to strike the backboard with force to cause the rim to vibrate anyhow.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

This post by randall says absolutely nothing.

Here are the rules he cites:

Originally Posted by NFHS 10-3-4 Player Technical

...Illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
a. Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage
b. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try to tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

randall doesn't grasped these rules because he never officiated in his life and doesn't understand the concept of judgement. He doesn't understand that officials have to judge advantage and intent. He thinks judgement should be hard coded somewhere in the rule book.

He is upset because when he attends his HS games different officials have differing judgement on the same or similar plays and there are no concrete words in the rule book spelling out how judgement should be determined from official to official.


You'll have to excuse my little mini-rant but I was out of town the last 2 weeks on business and couldn't really address this clown like I wanted to.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Don't we have to qualify and/or supplement these a bit with 10-3-4?

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

What needs to be qualified? What is incorrect about the statement? Billy pulled that particular statement from a "Commonly Misunderstood Rules" piece that he keeps.

Catching up since I have my hands on NFHS rule & case books now.

Randall, as usual, did not ask a legitimate question here. Just threw out a rule number in a vague manner. I guarantee if I read through this entire thread he never once explains what he meant by this question.