Help
 

Looking for a case play that shows the difference between slapping the backboard purposely & incidentally. Also, how slapping the backboard cannot be BI or GT.

Thanks!

Does 10.3.4 work?

Thanks Snaqs!

The NFHS definition for basket interference, Rule 4-6, does not make any allowance for a BI violation to be called due to slapping the backboard no matter if it was done incidentally or intentionally.

From The Files Of The Mythbusters ...
 

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)

Couldn't find anything in the NCAA Case Book...can't check Snaq's Fed cite right now. But I'm sure Randy Brown could help there.

If you were Costello, you would say....
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/f1EH96nCoTc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

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.

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. :confused:

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

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.