Defender hits backboard

[Rob1968]

We're presently in our state AAU tourney. A fellow official asked me about this last night. I gave him my opinion, and told him I'd get it on a forum to get some more input:

As A1 is in the act of shooting, B1 leaps and hits the backboard with both hands/fists. The shot is successful.
The covering official counts the goal, and T's the defender.

Thoughts? My friend said he found no direct Casebook or statement that specifically applies.

Thanks.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Thoughts? My friend said he found no direct Casebook or statement that specifically applies.

My thought is that your friend must not have seen 10.3.4, especially the COMMENT.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

We're presently in our state AAU tourney. A fellow official asked me about this last night. I gave him my opinion, and told him I'd get it on a forum to get some more input:

As A1 is in the act of shooting, B1 leaps and hits the backboard with both hands/fists. The shot is successful.
The covering official counts the goal, and T's the defender.

Thoughts? My friend said he found no direct Casebook or statement that specifically applies.

Thanks.

The official has the judge if the hitting the backboard act was a legitimate attempt the block the shot, even if it's a poor attempt.

To me, the slapping the backboard T will call itself. You'll know it when you see it and you'll grab that call, even if it's a split-second late. Slapping the other side of the backboard from where the shot originates is suspect, as is a profane slap when the ball isn't in the air yet.

I'd say about a third of my games each year have play above the rim and not once have I ever had to call this. I've seen it called once 12 years ago, and once ~ 7 years ago.

[Rob1968]

The main point of the conversation last night was the order of the events of the play. He said that the strike to the backboard was such that it could not be ignored, and that because the shooter was in the act, and having assessed the T, it seemed strange to then shoot the 2 freethrows for the T, and afterwards give the possession to the scoring team.
He did understand that striking the backboard is not basket interference, and that the shot would be successful or not, on its own merits.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The main point of the conversation last night was the order of the events of the play. He said that the strike to the backboard was such that it could not be ignored, and that because the shooter was in the act, and having assessed the T, it seemed strange to then shoot the 2 freethrows for the T, and afterwards give the possession to the scoring team.
He did understand that striking the backboard is not basket interference, and that the shot would be successful or not, on its own merits.

So the BB strike was before the shot left the shooter's hands? Sounds like he got it right. Right call, right enforcement.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So the BB strike was before the shot left the shooter's hands? Sounds like he got it right. Right call, right enforcement.

Snaqs, That's correct. During our conversation, I pointed out that the calling official would have to decide whether the strike was of such a nature to deserve the T, and that in most instances the striking would be ignored. He said that the defender was not trying to block the shot, which had not left the shooter's hands, and that the strike to the backboard was with both fists, which meets the statement in the comments in 10.3.4.

Thanks for your response. I get a lot of questions from our officials in my area, and really appreciate the opinions and rules interpretations from you and others here on the forum.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by rob1968

i get a lot of questions from our officials in my area, and really appreciate the opinions and rules interpretations from you and others here on the forum.

+1

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

During our conversation, I pointed out that the calling official would have to decide whether the strike was of such a nature to deserve the T, and that in most instances the striking would be ignored.

I can't think of a reason to ever ignore hitting the backboard with both hands when there's no attempt to block a shot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I can't think of a reason to ever ignore hitting the backboard with both hands when there's no attempt to block a shot.

Agreed. Two hands, two fists, one fist, even 1 hand if it's a solid slap; if he isn't trying to block a shot it's most likely a T.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The main point of the conversation last night was the order of the events of the play. He said that the strike to the backboard was such that it could not be ignored, and that because the shooter was in the act, and having assessed the T, it seemed strange to then shoot the 2 freethrows for the T, and afterwards give the possession to the scoring team.
He did understand that striking the backboard is not basket interference, and that the shot would be successful or not, on its own merits.

Does it also seem strange to award 2 FTs when a player makes a goal and is intentionally fouled? Perhaps, but that is the rule!

Don't judge the situation on how strange it is, just apply and enforce the rule as written.

[Rob1968]

Thanks for all the input. In the conversation with my friend, he said he had no problem with assessing the T and the penalty. Most of our conversation dealt with the oddity of the situation, in that we so very seldom see it. We both noted that if it had been a contact foul on the shooter, it is easy to understand, but the T, during the shooting motion, then a successful goal, then assessing the T and the two shots, and the possession, is a succession of events that we so rarely have to deal with, that it sparked the discourse.
Again, thanks for all the responses.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

We both noted that if it had been a contact foul on the shooter, it is easy to understand, but the T, during the shooting motion, then a successful goal, then assessing the T and the two shots, and the possession, is a succession of events that we so rarely have to deal with, that it sparked the discourse.

Its good to see these types of plays in the off-season! So when it occurs in our sanctioned games, we will get 'em right.

[bainsey]

Last time I saw this called was in a regional tournament game I was watching last year. The veteran official who called it had the same look on this face as I did when a hand unnecessarily hit the backboard -- "What did you do THAT for?"

If that question comes to mind, it's an easy T.

[BillyMac]

I've never seen it, but I've heard, second hand, about kids slapping the left side of the backboard when the shot comes from the right side (or vice versa). Easy technical foul. Unfortunately, still can't count the basket if it doesn't go in. Stupid kids.