Holy cow. I'd find myself a new association to work in.

Not to mention that calling a T in that situation could be seen as a game interrupter if you want to use your assigner's logic.

I said who gets the benefit of the doubt, I didn't make a blanket judgment. I even used the word "benefit" in the post, so I'm really not sure how you misinterpreted it.

I know what the rule says, I'm just saying how I'm going to officiate it and what criteria I'm going to use when making my judgment. Since the defender isn't going to telegraph his intent to me, I have to judge by the circumstances (ie, where the ball is, where the shooter is, how long the defender had to react, etc). Since I've never seen a shot blocker not pay attention to the ball, I just find it hard to believe the OP would happen without intent from the defender.

Sometimes I agree with it, but he does go by his own agenda sometimes.
The shot being missed because of the backboard would be the interrupter, without this interruption play would continue without a whistle. Just the way he wants it when he assigns.
As a young official it makes me think about how each assigner wants his games run and I can learn different ways of officiating. I had to learn early that there is no "correct" way officiate a game. Just be consistent in that game.

Your partner was a d-bag; sounds like a legitimate call to me.

Assuming the shot went in, you'd have to decide when he started his motion in comparison to when B1 slapped the BB in order to determine whether to count the shot.

A T is a "game interrupter" anyway, but you're not the one guilty of interrupting the game. The player is.

I couldn't have said it better.

I've seen this play actually more than you would think. It doesn't have to do with watching the ball. It's more like momentum. Usually the arm swing begins at the same time the knees bend to jump, especially with someone that's not a 7 footer and actually has to jump to make a block.
Not saying I wouldn't ever call a T on this, but it's definitely probable that I wouldn't have to.

From The Files Of The Mythbusters ...
 

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6230/...473e048e_m.jpg

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.

They still have time to realize the shot wasn't taken, and slow down the arm movement so that the backboard doesn't rattle -- it might still be contacted.

To go along with Snaq's post -- the harder the backboard is hit, the more the benefit of the doubt goes to the T.

This.

Would anyone like to see the rule changed so that if the backboard is hit hard enough to effect the ball going in the basket, we could call BI? This would be a judgement call but so is calling the T for hitting the backboard.

No.