It can be a technical foul in some circumstances (as addressed earlier in the thread). In NFHS, it cannot be a BI violation. So if your partner calls BI, I might go share the information I have if it appeared he/she called BI only because of the backboard slap. If you're not satisfied with the response, try to explain how that's not BI in NFHS in five seconds or less. If that doesn't sway him/her, just move on and talk about it later. No use having a clinic while everyone's waiting.

Again, as highlighted in the Gonzaga vs. BYU thread, slapping the backboard while the ball is in the cylinder can be a violation under NCAA rules. But don't call it that way in high school.

I'm not trying to make the case that it should be BI in NFHS. Just getting a feel for when, if ever, you guys would call a T for it.

Say B is leading by 2 pts. A1 releases the ball on a layup try with 3 secs remaining. The ball is rolling around the ring when B1 slaps the backboard, causing it to slightly vibrate. The ball falls off the ring as time expires.

Ruling?

First off, I think that we should make a case for it to be BI in NFHS. I realize the wording of the rule doesn't support that, but It's a rule change I'd be in favor of, to me it just makes sense. Just my thoughts on that-

As for your scenario, by your description, this would be a T from me. If the ball is rolling on the rim, then the player is not making a legitimate block attempt, because he can't. I'd have a T and shoot with cleared lane that will determine whether or not OT is necessary.

Technical foul on B1.

It's not basket interference, as touching the backboard while the ball is in the ring is not a violation. However, it is a tech for slapping the backboard without a legit reason for doing so (like following through while trying to block a shot).

And yes... it may be unfair for Team A, as they would have to hit the free throws instead of getting the two points for BI, but that's the rule. So go ahead with all the "it's an unfair strategy for Team B to use" stuff.

I can't imagine this being an actual strategy that anyone would attempt to employ, given the inconsistency of that act leading to a missed FG

It's not a strategy that would be used often cause I feel over 60-70 percent of officials would incorrectly (by NFHS rules) call it basket interference

Logic hasn't kept people from asking about things like this anyway.

+1. I hope the NCAA rule trickles down to NFHS like a lot of rules do, but I don't think tinkering with the BI rule would be a rules committee priority. They've got much more pressing business, like moderating fashion trends, adjusting free throw lane violation rules seemingly every year, and talking about intentional fouls that we don't call intentional fouls.