Slapping Backboard
 

So last night HS boys. I am trail, A1 going for layup B2 tries to block shot, B2 slaps backboard pretty hard but not so hard that it shakes rim or causes ball to not go in. He misses layup. Coach wants a T. I say coach it isn't a technical. YES IT IS. Coach it isn't. I have seen it called and you know it is a rule. He called a timeout and wanted to ask me about it.

10-3-4

I think this is a highly misinterpreted rule. How about where you are at?

Yep, I hear the same thing here every time it happens.

Not so much.

Most Coaches don't know this rule and many others. As long as the player makes an attempt to block the shot we have nothing.

At least the coach asked for a T and not a goaltend.

I think he even said something about that also.

Haha... you gave him too much credit in your OP.

You did the right thing. I have been in the same boat and my response was: "Coach, by rule it is a legal play if the defender is attempting to block a shot." At that point, my dialog ends.

Casebook play
Why would we not score the goal in (b) if the try is successful? By not counting the score, wouldn't we be kind of rewarding B for committing the Technical foul?

Read b again.

Sigh...

Note to self:
Do Not Post Until Caffeine Kicks In.

I think at the varsity level most coaches do know the rule. Maybe at lower levels the misconception is more prevalent. I haven't had a varsity coach complain about this in a very long time.

Coaches ask for a goaltend because in the NBA, it's goaltending if a defender vibrates the rim, net, or backboard so that it causes the ball to make an unnatural bounce...and yes, I've seen this actually occur.

As to my area, I've only seen the play occur once, and told the coach why it wasn't anything...he accepted the answer without much argument.

When I was in high school, we had a referee call a T for touching the backboard when a player trapped the ball against the backboard while blocking a shot (without actually touching the backboard).

Varsity game this was.

It's never misinterpreted in games I work. Once explained the rule to a complaining, a-hole AAU coach from Texas whose response was "I don't care what the rule is".

Had an entire varsity team (HC, ACs, players, trainer, bus driver) stand and signal for a T on a play like this. I gave them a timeout.

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.