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.

To quote scholary JR....
http://www.forumspile.com/Old-1950sHeadache.jpg

How about in the first passage, causing the ring to vibrate?

No.

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.

The point is Billy's list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of what is legal and what is not (though I'm sure he has that stashed away somewhere ;)). His list is intended to debunk some commonly held basketball myths.

Yes, I understood the general context. It was the "It is legal to touch the ring . . ." that seemed to stretch things a little. I'm with you on the grasping part, but that is 10-3-3. 10-3-4 simply says "contact", then (a) says "Placing a hand". There seems to be a lower standard in 10-3-4.

This is the one I was thinking needed supplementing, as opposed to qualifying. It struck me that causing ring vibration should be added to the two conditions Billy mentioned, "attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration."

Gotcha.

Billy committed heresy in Randall's eyes. He posted something with clarity.

Randall doesn't believe it's possible to explain anything and still be right in fewer than 1000 words.

Still waiting for the first time Randall posts an actual rule. Guess the a$$-hat thinks everyone walks around with a rule book in their back pocket.

He's a clown.

Exactly. And if someone could describe a situation in which merely touching the rim would create an advantage, I suppose that would show Billy's statement to be slightly inadequate.

Except Billy's statement is still true...it is legal to touch the rim/net when the ball isn't on the rim. You can play semantics with "place" vs. "grab" but 10-3-4a only says it's only illegal if it's to gain an advantage.

One can cause the rim to vibrate if it's a legit shot block attempt. Billy's and NFHS' point is we see players intentionally strike the backboard (that isn't a legit block attempt) often when frustrated or draw attention to oneself (think a dunk and slap on the board on the way down).

As Welpe pointed out, this list isn't meant to be a replacement for the rule book. Rather this list was made to aid officials and specifically to help inform fans on aspects of the rules that they otherwise wouldn't know.

Yep, and that's all I was pointing out, there.

Any of you guys ever seen a high school player with the ability to contact the ring or backboard and use it to their advantage somehow? I don't think I've ever seen that, including as a spectator.

It goes right back to knowing the purpose and intent of a rule. And that's also exactly why R10-3-3 and 10-4-1(i) says it's a "T" to grasp the rim, not merely touch it.

Yes. Several times and in different ways.

And always involving either slapping, pushing, or grasping; never mere "touching."

In case I ever see it while working, please share, and maybe I'll be prepared. By the way, did you T it under 10-3-4a?

Grasping and slapping, yes, but describe the pushing for me. Are we talking using the board/ring to reposition themselves to block a shot, get a rebound, or what?

A1 goes up for a 2 handed dunk, while airborn he loses control of the ball & grabs the rim with his left hand before dunking the ball with his right hand.

Believe me when I say, when you see it, it'll be patently blatant, and it'll call itself.

An interesting one: Isn't that legal, because done while dunking? Does the "before" element make it illegal? What about shooting motion? Did you call it?

Defensive player puts one hand on one side of the board to steady himself and swats the ball away on the other side with the other hand. "T" for the hand on the board and possible goaltending or basket interference on the swat.

Defensive player grabs the ring with one hand and swats a try away with the other. Same result. Technical foul and possible GT or BI.

Yeah, okay... :eek:

<strike>Not if the grasping was done while control of the ball had been lost.</strike>

<strike>And</strike> if a player uses the rim to make a dunk possible (prolonging air time, gaining extra height, etc), ring him up.

And the exception is listed in 4-6, Basket Interference, not 10-3. There is no exception for player technicals during a dunk.

Is this a serious question? :confused:

I'd "T" that one up under 10-3-3 instead of 10-3-4. The ball is dead on the initial grab so the subsequent dunk with a dead ball is ignored(unless you're MTD Sr. :) )

You have to make sure that another player wasn't underneath A1 though when he grabbed the ring. If so, you can still make 10-4-4(a) fit also. Same result.

Ignoring your list, are you? :D

It will probably have to. In one of my first AAU games, I witnessed a kid make one of the most fluid hook and spin moves for an easy lay-in I have ever seen. It came toward me from the block across the key while in Lead. I was so shocked, I could do nothing but admire it (along with the even more mesmerized spectator standing behind me). Same thing happened later in the game by a very small player on the same team. Again, while in Lead, he grabs the jersey of a much larger opponent under the basket during rebounding, precisely at the moment the opponent tries to go up for the rebound, and then quickly released. The opponent didn't even know it had happened. Again, I was dumbfounded, and unable to react. I was not prepared for those sorts of tactics at that level.

He's getting quoted, which allows me to respond.

I've got the same problem..... Gapper had an issue with me quoting someone the other day and I told him I would try to avoid it in the future.....now, if I can only remember who it was....... :confused:

I really don't mind too much when it happens. If he starts asking intelligent questions and actually responding like a referee instead of a theologian, I can always adjust the list accordingly.

Like that's going to happen.

Which one, APG? :) tref did say control was lost, but what if it wasn't? What if, as Snaq seems to be picking up on (and tref in his subsequent post), A1 maintains control with one hand? Is he OK to go ahead and grab with the off-hand, followed by a grab with the dunking hand as he puts it through, as long as he hasn't prolonged or propelled, as Snaq points out?

Not under my ruleset. :mad:

4-6-2
Exception: In Arts. 1 or 2, if a player has his/her hand hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continue after it enters the basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touche the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference.

The italicized part is my emphasis. In your play is A1's hand contacting the ball?

Good point, the other important part is:
"is not basket interference." Behavior that is a technical foul without a dunk is not exempted because it happens during a dunk. The exception here is to the BI rule, not the TF rule.

I was focusing on 10-3-4, APG--disregard BI in regards to my comments. 10-3-3 kept creeping in, and when tref brought up the dunk situation, I found it interesting, and wondered about the implications as far as technicals go. If A1 goes up for either a one- or two-handed dunk, initially, and then uses only one hand to dunk, but before doing so, grasps the ring with the off-hand, maintains control with the other, do we have a T (assume the grasp was not for safety considerations, as Jurassic points out)?

Answered in post #41 of this thread.

This is exactly why you're constantly getting crapped on here. A question gets answered with corresponding rules citations. You refuse to believe the answer and then come up with all kinds of extraneous crap that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

If you don't understand what is being discussed, you shouldn't be part of the discussion. It's that simple.

Yes, but in this situation, both are at work, simultaneously, no?

You never get this far. The ball is dead on the technical foul as soon as the player grabbed the ring with one hand before he dunked with his other hand.

No...and you again very obviously didn't understand what Snaqs just told you.

Randy, your question has already been answered by JR. You are making this way too complicated. You can't grasp the rim save for the specific exceptions that have already been cited in the thread. I really don't understand what your confusion is. It's a pretty basic basket rule. :confused:

Perhaps, but I'm wondering if others have a different view, considering that dunking is allowed, and that grasping is allowed while dunking. I know I have seen it numerous times where a player tries a two-handed dunk, believes or realizes it isn't going to happen, lets one hand slip off to grasp the rim, followed by the other hand driving the ball through, and a final two-handed grasp. On those occasions, I have never seen a T called.

Numerous times? Really? Perhaps what you think you are seeing isn't really occurring because I can say I've rarely seen this play happen where the player/team wasn't properly penalized. I could see this maybe happening when the officials on the game aren't used to above the rim play, but for any official who has even done just a few above the rim games, this shouldn't catch them off guard.

I'd like to see some of those games!!

Also answered by you and Snaqs.....

I have no idea why he comes here. There was some very good points made in this thread by various posters. Unfortunately Randy doesn't seem to understand them and he also just refuses to believe anything that he's told. He surashell doesn't understand the nuances of this particular rule when we talk about them.

Im confused, which one is it?

Lots of funky stuff happens in competitive AAU varsity games.

That's what I was thinking.

When I first arrived at the forum several yrs ago, I asked a question about players hanging on the rim. Many dunks, I believe, end in players excessively hanging or holding on the rim (mostly at the college and NBA level).....and we're talking grasping and holding, swinging, nearly doing chin ups, etc., and they are very rarely called.

With experience, I learned not to be a plumber.

The play of which you speak, IMO, would happen very fast, and you would not be evaluated well, or move forward, by calling it.

You'll learn to let em go (or not).......I did.

I'm relying on a lifetime of spectating, here. Maybe the rule is different in college and/or pro? That is where I would have seen most of it. I come from the land of white. I don't have a problem accepting it. I just wasn't seeing the distinction as important, as long as no hanging was done or advantage gained by the initial grab, considering that the rules allow for grasping while dunking. This struck me as one of those situations where I thought at least some of you would argue there is no violation of the intent of the rules, because there is no advantage gained.

No advantage gained by a player grasping the rim with his free hand before dunking...ooookay then. :confused:

The first passage you quote me on is from my originally intended discussion of 10-3-4. Responses drifted from that, and we turned to 10-3-3, which is where we were in the second passage.

All during the downward dunking motion. As I said previously, no hanging, no propulsion, no prolonging. Where's the advantage?

Well, that's what I was thinking, but most of the responses, here, indicate they would not let them go.

My chances of playing in The League would've increased considerably, if that was legal :D

This play isn't legal at any level. The rule is the same under NCAA rules I believe. Under NBA rules, this would be an illegal assist in scoring violation...not a technical foul. The ball would be awarded to the defense at the free throw line extended.

Again I say, what you think you are viewing must not be what is happening. No official is going to allow a player to grasp the rim clearly with his off-hand and dunk the ball with the other hand...I promise you if I allowed this to happen in a game, the entire team on defense, the bench, the coach, the person at the snack bar getting popcorn...everyone would give me hell for this, because everyone knows you can't do this...the dunker would probably have a look on his face knowing he got away with one.

Haven't you yourself said you've only been officiating for at most two years? :confused: I'd be very careful in trying to determine what is and isn't the intent of the rules...the replies you get on the forum come from those that have been doing this a lot longer than you and I have. I would concentrate more on knowing the rules inside and out, mechanics, and how to properly enforce the rules.

Anyway, getting back to my topic: It sounds like some of you work in areas where at least some of the high school kids are capable of violating 10-3-4a. In an attempt to gather its frequency, has any of you ever actually called it?

Not very often...it's not even a call that happens at any level of play that often. Consider how many times you've seen this happen in NCAA/NBA games. Players pretty much know you can't do this. I've called it once and it was pretty blatant.

I'm not sure I'm being understood. I'm talking about what grunewar is talking about, and tref when he indicated it would be allowed because during a dunk, and Snaq when he seemed to make a distinction based on whether control of the ball was maintained. Some of you seem to be imagining moment being applied to the ring. I'm just talking about a simple grasp, nothing else--no affect whatever on the goal taking place by the hand with the ball doing the dunking.

That comports with my observations as a spectator.

That reminds me.

Popcorn sounds good.

Well there's something faulty with your observations. What you think is happening is probably not happening. If you wish to, find an example on YouTube or any other site and share it with us. If it's happening as often as you said it was, then surely it would be easy to find video evidence?

FTR, I've revised my post. The exception in 4-6 does not apply to 10-3. I should have caught that before responding, but I've now crossed out the irrelevant portions of my initial response.

No, we're crystal!!

To be fair, I was sidetracked when basket interference was brought up earlier. JR was right that it didn't apply in this case.

Perhaps stabilization, improved yaw, reduced pitch, upward negative thrust...who gives a Canadian nickel, it's illegal for good reason. This isn't a case where you apply the Tower Principle and I'm not really sure why you are trying to.

:D Sheez: "comport" means to be consistent with, or agree!

Umm...my bad! :o

Mainly because it's not in the rule, but you're right in that TP is often applied where the rule itself doesn't call for it (3 seconds, Duke travels). And there's also the "That Guy Principal," you don't want to be the only ref in your area calling something.

You are changing my play situation. I explicitly exclude advantage, and you retort by putting it into the situation. I'm not trying to apply the Tower Principle. I said I figured others would, given that there is no advantage gained IN MY SITUATION, together with the fact that grasping is allowed while dunking. I mean, we don't call grasping the rim when the attempted dunk misses, so it can't be that there is some strict rule that the ball must go through the ring before grasping is allowed--or am I wrong there, too?

A player is not allowed to grasp the basket unless he's doing so to prevent injury or his hand is legally in contact with the ball in the process of dunking or stuffing the ball...otherwise it's a technical foul...period. What is hard to understand about that? Why are you the only one having an issue with the rule? How is it that everyone else understands this simple rule?

Dunking does not legally allow a player to grasp the rim.

You left an important factor out which I included but that is really neither here nor there.

You sure seem to be arguing that we should be but since others aren't saying to, what does that tell you? Is your first thought that we are all wrong?

That's what is confusing him.

Shut up Snaq*...I knew what I was saying. :D



*Of course you are correct.

The best being my assertion that this guy an a$$-hat and clown. :D

He accused someone of changing his play situation. How can that be when he never once described a play or quoted a rule?

I guarantee he is incapable of describing a play and then quoting a rule that would apply.

LOL, I only corrected you because someone seems honestly confused about applying an exception to the BI rule to a technical foul.

That would be like allowing traveling because of 9-9-3.

As I said to APG, I was disregarding BI, entirely, so I couldn't be confused about it. My question was a very narrow one having to do with technicals for grasping during a dunk--which I regret ever asking, now. Grasping during dunking or attempted dunking is virtually universally allowed under the guise of injury prevention, right--even though in many cases it's theatrics, habit, or whatever. You guys don't call it unless you feel it's egregious or excessive, somehow, I assume. So, I was wondering how many of you would parse the language to include the case of an off-hand grasping the ring a bit early--to no advantage--as being within the limits of injury prevention (preemptive, as it may be), and how many of you would not care about advantage, and T it, regardless. For instance, Snaq, I would have guessed you would let it go if there was no advantage gained, given what you have said previously about contact, and since you don't care what coaches, players, or fans think about your judgment.

Vibrating...
 

Back in the middle of the twentieth century, in order to charge a technical foul for slapping the backboard, didn't the official need to observe the backboard vibrating during a try? If so, maybe this is what's confusing RandyBrown because somewhere along the way, I believe, the NFHS took away the vibrate part of the rule.

Where's Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. when you need him? Probably calling some poor, young, high school pitcher for a balk because he scratched his nose while on the pitcher's mound.

I feel like most every official would call a T or the appropriate violation if a player grabbed the rim with the off-hand and then preceded to dunk the ball with the other hand. For the most part, we don't apply advantage/disadvantage to violations/technical fouls. I suppose you could say a player grabbed the rim to prevent injury and not call the T, but whenever I've seen this called it's pretty obvious that there was no threat of injury.

Misty Water Colored Memories ...
 

Thus, the "Ralph Sampson Rule".

As I said before, it's a "T" if the grasp wasn't done to prevent injury. That "T" makes the ball dead, so the subsequent dunk is moot. But if you feel the grasp was made to prevent an injury, no "T" but you still call the BI.

That obviously wasn't for your benefit. You knew that. :)

NFHS rule 4-6-1 and casebook play 9.11.1SitB for Randy.

Billy, there was a lot of confusion to go around, because multiple things got brought up during the discourse. You're back on 10-3-4, where I started. The confusion I am thought to suffer commenced when we moved on to 10-3-3, and someone then broght up basket interference thinking I was involving it, somehow, but I was not.

That sounds like a practical, middle-of-the-road response to my question/situation. Thank you. Anyone diverge from this?

I appreciate the cites. If I understand your position on your first point, you apply 10-3-3 strictly, even in light of what players commonly get away with while dunking--I have no problem with that. I also understand your second point--so you don't feel the Exception under 4-6-1 and 2 give us room to waive the BI call in this case, huh? Does everyone agree with that?

I Know I'm Going to Regret This
 

You're the one who brought BI into the discussion by saying:

The exception noted in the rule book for dunking is for BI, not for a technical foul. IOW, grasping the rim is a T. Period. End of story. The only exception to that is if the player is trying to prevent an injury; and that does not require a dunk to be attempted.