Slapping Backboard
 

A1 makes a steal right at halfcourt. B1 follows behind timing up a block on the smaller guard. A1 pump fakes and B1 goes up on the shot fake and slaps the backboard. After B1 lands, A1 puts a shot up on the rattling backboard and misses the easy lay up and B2 comes up and gets the rebound.

The backboard shaking clearly was a factor in the missed shot, however this cannot be a case of basket interference.

Should we call a T on B1 for the slap even though he was at first faked out by the pump? Or should we pass on it?

No T if the slap was a legitimate attempt to make a play on the ball.

How is it a legitimate attempt to play the ball if the ball is still A1's hands?

Agreed

That's why it's called an "attempt." He got faked out, but that doesn't mean he still wasn't trying to play the ball and slapped the backboard as a result.

Whatever the semantics are, if I believe he's making a legit play on the ball and not intentionally slapping the backboard, I have nothing.

If I believe the slap was intentional, I have a T.

If the ball's in the air on the same side as the slap, the defender gets the benefit. If the ball isn't even in the air and the shooter is still on the floor, benefit goes to the offense.

I have a hard time imagining a defender hitting the backboard on accident when the ball isn't even in the air.

This.

Well I've had it happen. Defensive player was all wound up to swat the ball, started his motion to block as the offensive player passed the ball. Defensive player's momentum caused him to strike the backboard, causing it to shake.

I think it's pretty premature to make a blanket judgment on this type of play based solely on the location of the ball.

Keyword in the rule is "intentionally," meaning it's is based on judgment.

In general, I'd agree with that but if the defender got pump faked or otherwise "tricked", I'm probably not going to call anything if there is ANY doubt. Typically, the defender did go up in anticipation of blocking the shot. The defender did have their hands/arms up there in anticipation of the ball being there. It just so happens that they anticipated wrong. I just don't see that as an infraction.

Now, going up there on the wrong side or while the ball is rolling on the rim, I can see....but not after being pump faked.

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.

You might need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't make a blanket judgment; just noted that I have a hard time picturing a player shaking the rim on a pump fake due to momentum alone.

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 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.

What difference would it have made had the shot gone in? That has zero bearing on the rule.

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.

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.