Same here. The bad thing is I get it right and coach gets mad and thinks I am wrong because someone else actually did get it wrong. Not that I care about him getting mad.


Funny thing is the girls coach was at scorers table with case book trying to find it and couldn't. I showed him after the game, some crazy momma told me I needed to get my rulebook out and read it. To funny.

Everything's bigger in Texas. Even the a-hole AAU coaches. Summertime is fun around here on the weekends. ;)

lol. Awesome! :d

"B2 slaps backboard pretty hard but not so hard that it shakes rim or causes ball to not go in."


Don't have books with me at work, but why is this part of the play even relevant? Doesn't the rule state "intentionally strike the backboard..."

shaking the rim or causes ball to not go in..the slapping of the backboard MUST be intentional, if not we play on and whatever happens as a result needs to be supported by rule...ie basket interference or goaltending; can't have goaltending without touching the ball, and the backboard is not part of the basket, hence no basket interference.

What am I missing?

I apologize if "tone" may seem bad. I just wanted to take the discussion a bit further in regards to the slapping of the backboard.

You're right, it doesn't matter. After I told him it wasn't a T, he wanted goaltending, which I explained it wasn't that either.

I shake my head, maybe. At that point, my dialog ends.

lmao...what a response from a coach...dumb a$$!

Myths happen.

Last year, JVB, H-32 got frustrated and pounded the padding on the end line. My partner whacked him.

H-32 then untucks his jersey, as if he fouled out. (In a way, he did. Coach H has a rule that you're done if you get a T.) Coach V is right on me that untucking the jersey is a technical foul. While someone could make the case that it's an unsportsmanlike act, I didn't find it be, and it's certainly not an automatic T. My partner also figured it would be "double jeopardy" to nail him so quickly on the second one.

Isn't there a case play about this? I think it says it is an unsporting technical foul. If they are protesting a call, which doesn't seem to be the case here in your eyes.

It was the last time I spoke to him that game.

Misty Water Color Memories ...
 

You're missing something that is ancient history. "Causing the rim to shake" used to be part of the rule about thirty years ago.

Note: I had a coach tell me tonight that I couldn't call a five second closely guarded violation against his dribbler because the dribbler broke the plane of the hash mark. I told him to show me the hash mark, and, of course, he couldn't, because it wasn't there anymore, and hasn't been in the rule book for about twenty years.

The word shake was replaced by the word vibrate? Progress, I suppose.

I had an pregame meeting with a coach (5th/6th CYO) a few weeks ago and he asked us if we were going to play this game using that rule. I had never heard of such a rule, but knew it was not in the book. We said no. The worst part: the coach was serious.