I know you guys have already answered this before. But can you indulge me and help me out on the following sitch. Here is how the scenario was described to me (varsity boys high school game):

Player A1 goes in for a layup. Player B1 attempts to block the shot. Player B1 misses the ball and inadvertantly slaps the backboard. This causes the ball (which is resting on the ring) to deflect (or bounce) off the ring and the try is not successful.

The official that described the situation to me said both officials blew their whistles. However, when they got together, they were not in agreement as to what violation had just occurred. One thought the play was basket interference and the try should be counted. The other stated that slapping the backboard was a "T" and Team A should shoot freethrows.

To complicate matters, I indicated I thought it was basket interference and the try should be counted. But one of my peers feels this situation does not meet the criteria of BI and a third option is actually the correct answer...a "no call". Please help.

No Basket Interference!!!
 

If the play happen as it was discribed, there should have been nothing to call. You cannot have Basket Interference (need to read the definitions) by touching the backboard at all in the first place. You could have a T if the officials feel that the action was not appart of a block attempt. But as long as the block attempt was missed or simply inadvertently hit the backboard by the defender in this case, you have to just leave this alone.

Your friends did what many do, they listen to fans instead of the actual rulebook. This is one of those "Basketball Myths" that Referee Magazine has written about a few times over the years. This is probably why they did not know what to do.

Peace

No call for a legitimate shot block attempt. Good job by the officals to get together and talk, but what result did they come up with? As I said, there should be no call as long as they are trying to block the shot.


Tyler

Same answer here
http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=6569

Thanks for the replies. One more question, if you don't mind. Am I correct is saying that we interpret the Rule Book to say that, "A player shall not, 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 "intentionally" cause the ring to vibrate"? Although the word "intentionally" does not appear in the Rule Book before the phrase "cause the ring to vibrate", we interpret that this was the intent of the rule. Correct?

Again, thanks for everyone's help.

PS - In answer to your question, Moose, the "R" in the game (a new transfer to our chapter and a D1 official on the women's side) indicated he was positive of his high school rules knowledge and ruled that slapping the backboard was an automatic "T". They allowed Team A to shoot two free throws. Guess you're never too old to learn...that applies to me as well...;)

Damn those NCAA Women's refs!!!

With all due respect to your D1 Official transfer, I would probably assume that he does not see alot of "above the rim" play on the Women's side. I am speaking partly from experience having done some D3 games and officiating a few D1 prospects in HS. Not many girls are able to consistently slap the backboard.

I do not have the rulebook in front of me, but the slap has to be intentional. If you read the casebook, there is a play that discribes an accidentally (or at least there was in the book) slapping the backboard and requiring nothing to be called. So it seems like even the guys at the top can make mistakes.

Peace

Case 10.3.6 Comment. The purpose of the rule is to penalize intentional or deliberate contact. Contact which occurs incidentally in play is allowed but when it is so forceful it cannot be ignored... I'll stop there. If the slap causes the structure to vibrate and the ball is affected, this cannot be ignored.
Technical foul, not basket interference.

That only applies if it is "intentional", you should have finished the sentence in the case book.

"....ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to player or vent frustration..."

A legit attempt to block a shot that vibrates Backboard is nothing regardless of what ball does. IMO it does seem though that this may cause ball not to go in once in a while. Maybe NFHS will realize this and make an exception to call BI?.? Until then it is nothing.

How about this....NCAA rules

Team B leads Team A 76-73 with :05 left in second half.

A1 attempts a 3-point shot

Just before ball hits rim, B1 violently slaps backboard, causing it to shake. Shot bounces off rim and is no good.

Time expires.

A "T" here gives two free throws, A loses by one.

Basket interference counts the hoop...game tied.

What do you do?

Obviously no legit attempt by B1 to block shot...what is the correct call here?

The correct call is to charge B1 with a T in the score book,no FT's are shot because 2 points won't determine a winner,Team B wins by 3 and you all go for a brownpop. That's both NFHS and NCAA rules.

If the ball was resting on the ring when the backboard was slapped, then the player couldn't possibly have been trying to block the shot.

WHACK!

Thanks, Jurrassic, but I'm wondering if that's a rule that may be reviewed someday.

Taking away a 3-point opportunity but penalizing only 2 FT's could conceivably have some teams slapping the backboard on purpose in some situations.

I doubt it.

If the 3-pointer is good, we go to OT.

If a player slaps the backboard and the shot is good, we lose the game (it's unlikely that the best shooter on the team is going to miss two in a row).

I don't think a coach is going to take that chance.

Rule interpretation by Steven Ellinger
 

Steven Ellinger, Constitution Chair, IAABO (99-2000), is a respected official and writer of the NASO The Official’s Guide: Basketball Myths (‘98). Steven officiates NCAA (Division 1) and State High School ball (Texas). He operates basketball camps in the Houston area during summer months. Steve is a practicing lawyer in the State Of Texas.

Text comes from Chapter Three - page 37 (Basketball ‘97-‘98).

Slapping the backboard is always a technical foul. Myth #8.

Reality: Officials who will want to call everything will love this play. Let’s review the rule first. A player shall not intentionally slap either backboard or cause either ring to vibrate while the ball is in flight during a try or tap, or is touching the backboard, or is on or in the basket, or in the cylinder above the basket (ncaa/10-3-h) Federation also includes the script- A player shall not place a hand on the backboard to gain an advantage (Fed 10.3.6- Player Technical). The penalty is a technical foul.

If the ball is not in flight on a try or a tap, not touching the backboard, not in the cylinder ring, or not on or within the basket, slapping the backboard is not a technical foul. (You could have an unsportsmanlike technical foul if a slap other than in those situations described above is for “showboating” or intimidation purposes.) If, however, the backboard is intentionally slapped when the ball is in flight on a try or a tap, is touching the backboard, is in the imaginary cylinder, or is on or within the basket, it is a technical foul.

The intent behind slapping the backboard rule is to penalize deliberate contact with the backboard. If a defensive player makes a play for the ball during rebounding action and incidentally contacts the backboard, it is a no-call. However, when the backboard is slapped intentionally during any of the above situations, a technical foul must be called.

Don’t confuse the play with basket interference, because points can never be awarded for that infraction. Here’s an example: the ball is on the rim when a defensive player intentionally slaps the backboard. Because of the vibration, the ball bounces off the rim and does not enter the goal. A technical foul is called correctly but basket interference can never be called. Many officials incorrectly count the goal and administer the technical foul. The correct rule may not seem fair, but that’s the rule. Call that little wrinkle “myth 8 ½”.

Additional text must be read by the concerned official- Fed. Case-Play 10-3-6, p.72

Contacting the backboard

10.3.6 Play. A1 tries for goal. B1 jumps as if to block the shot but instead slaps or strike the backboard or vibrates the ring as a result of pulling on the net. The ball: (a) goes into the basket; or (B) does not enter the basket. RULING: In both (a) and (b), a technical foul is charged to B1. In (a) the basket counts and in (b) there is no basket.

Comment: The purpose of the rule is to penalize intentional or deliberate contact with the backboard. Contact, which occurs incidentally in playing the game is allowed, but when slapping or striking is intentional or deliberate or is so forceful it cannot be ignored, a technical foul must be charged. The player who contacts the board illegally is either hoping the contact will cause the try to be unsuccessful, or is doing so to draw attention, or as a means of frustration.

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS PLAY-SITUATION WITH YOUR PARTNER IN PRE-GAME TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY FROM YOUR “TEAM”.

Where can we get archive copies of those books. I had that particular edition and have since misplaced it. I have referred to the book many times in our association discussions and would like a copy. Please respond if you can help.

Re: Rule interpretation by Steven Ellinger
 

Would this include a situation where a player dunked the ball, then slapped the backboard, before returning to the floor?

I think that it does, Tony. However, I have seen this many times on a dunk or a lay-up, but have never called it. Now if I have a jerk player or coach I just might pull it out!

NASO Books
 

I'm not sure where the old guide bookscan be purchased, but I believe the Basketball Myths article also appeared in Referee Magazine in '97 or '98. You might want to check NASO or Referee Books (1-800-733-6100). I'm not recommending them, just posting in reply to Buckley11's request. No spam intended.

Pretty impressive inadvertant slap of the backboard to knock the ball off the rim. When I used to slap the backboard that hard my only goal was to disrupt the ball from going in the rim. My call would be "T" if it knocked ball off rim. These kids know its not called and it should be in my oppinion added to the list of goal tending criteria. jmo. Would make sense to count the goal then to T someone up.

Re: Rule interpretation by Steven Ellinger
 

JimGolf, you have posted ELLINGER'S good strong position on slapping the backboard. Although, I am uncertain about his Basket Interference, BI, information. Maybe it is just the way (context) he worded the following paragraphs...

[QUOTE]

Don’t confuse the play with basket interference, because points can never be awarded for that infraction. Here’s an example: the ball is on the rim when a defensive player intentionally slaps the backboard. Because of the vibration, the ball bounces off the rim and does not enter the goal. A technical foul is called correctly but basket interference can never be called. Many officials incorrectly (CALL Basket Interference - my clarification,)count the goal and administer the technical foul. The correct rule may not seem fair, but that’s the rule.

Comment: The purpose of the rule is to penalize intentional or deliberate contact with the backboard. Contact, which occurs incidentally in playing the game is allowed, but when slapping or striking is intentional or deliberate or is so forceful it cannot be ignored, a technical foul must be charged. The player who contacts the board illegally is either hoping the contact will cause the try to be unsuccessful, or is doing so to draw attention, or as a means of frustration.
[QUOTE]


My points:
#1 An official should award points for BI if the violation is by the defense (9-11 Penalty 1). However, Ellinger is correct that BI is the WRONG call for slapping the backboard. The definition of BI is very specific and it includes contact with the ball, basket, or net - NOT THE BACKBOARD. BI is the wrong call for slapping the backboard.

#2 Ellinger's last sentence (that I have quoted) is also a bit of a twist from the casebook statement. 10.3.6 in the casebook says: I think Ellinger got it right because he inserted the word "illegal." However, the case book implies that acts drawing attention or venting frustration MAY be worthy of a T (that these acts are illegal).

Ellinger is stepping a little beyond the rules and being very firm about his decision - he uses the word "must" rather than may. And he states illegality before he states the criteria for illegality.

Just a couple observations about the information you have quoted. Thanks Jim. :)

rim shaking?
 

I usually cover this scenario in pre-game because the slapping of the backboard to "draw attention" seems to be happening a lot in my league. Where there is frequently disagreement with some of my partners is over the criteria for defining "draw attention". A common thing I hear is, the slap should be a no call unless the rim is shaking. The rationale being that it is the shaking rim that draws the attention of everyone not the noise of the slap, which is all to common a noise. How do others on the board define "drawing attention"? must the basket be shaking?

thanks
GTW