Slapping Backboard

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by berserkBBK

I agree that it does not matter based on the rule, but the assigner I was working for does not like "game interrupters".

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I did re-read what you wrote. And this:



reads to me like a blanket judgment based solely on where the ball is, not on the intent of the defender, which is what the rule calls for.

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.

[berserkBBK]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by berserkBBK

I was new lead on this play and ended up calling a T on B1. I am not sure if this was correct, however I would have passed if it went in. I was close to the play and judged it based on B1 not looking at A1 when he went for a block.

The coach could not argue when I explained to him that it was not a legitimate shot block since the ball was still in the hand belly of the shooter. It did not help that my partner made it obvious that he did not agree and refused to talk about it after the 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.

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Blindolbat]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I can see that, but if he's hitting the backboard hard enough to rattle the rim, as the OP suggests, I don't see how that could happen with a pump fake. That's (in general) a player who determined he was going to swing for the fences, and when the ball didn't go, he swung anyway.

What shot blocker isn't even watching the ball when he swats at it?

I'm not saying it's automatic, and I can't judge without seeing it, but I'm just saying how I picture the play.

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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[hoopguy]

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

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.