The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 08:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 118
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 08:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by berserkBBK View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 09:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
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?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 09:41pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post
How is it a legitimate attempt to play the ball if the ball is still A1's hands?
Agreed
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 09:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post
How is it a legitimate attempt to play the ball if the ball is still A1's hands?
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.

Last edited by fiasco; Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:03pm.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 10:06pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:10pm.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 10:09pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
This.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 10:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by fiasco; Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:18pm.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 11:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 11:50pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 11:53pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 08, 2011, 12:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
You might need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't make a blanket judgment;
I did re-read what you wrote. And this:

Quote:
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 08, 2011, 12:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 118
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 08, 2011, 12:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by berserkBBK View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 08, 2011, 12:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slapping the backboard tomegun Basketball 11 Fri Dec 11, 2009 07:55pm
Slapping the backboard bas2456 Basketball 14 Thu Feb 26, 2009 03:40pm
Slapping the backboard rhhudson Basketball 14 Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:42pm
Slapping The Backboard kerry7 Basketball 17 Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:25am
Slapping backboard refnrev Basketball 23 Sat Jan 06, 2007 07:29pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1