Video Request: NOT BI in NFHS

crosscountry55

Kentucky @ South Carolina, 1/16/18, ESPN, 3:30 2nd Half.

This is why HS coaches think that some backboard slaps equate to BI. It’s because they see it on TV. Worth showing and pointing out that this is NOT BI at the HS level.

Now should it be? I think so but that’s a separate discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JRutledge

Peace

Jay R

I assume he didn't call BI, he called goaltending. Having said that, it was neither.

bob jenkins

I didn's see any slap of the backboard worth discussing here. The GT call is very close -- some give all the benefit of the doubt to the offense on this play.

Raymond

crosscountry55 wrote
Kentucky @ South Carolina, 1/16/18, ESPN, 3:30 2nd Half.

This is why HS coaches think that some backboard slaps equate to BI. It’s because they see it on TV. Worth showing and pointing out that this is NOT BI at the HS level.

Now should it be? I think so but that’s a separate discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was a GT call, not BI.

crosscountry55

Jay R wrote
I assume he didn't call BI, he called goaltending. Having said that, it was neither.

No, the announcer called it goaltending. That doesn’t make it goaltending.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rich

crosscountry55 wrote
No, the announcer called it goaltending. That doesn’t make it goaltending.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's what the C called, too. He likely thought it hit the board before it was touched.

crosscountry55

When the ball is above a rattling basket following a backboard slap, how does that not fall under the BI rule?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Raymond

crosscountry55 wrote
When the ball is above a rattling basket following a backboard slap, how does that not fall under the BI rule?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The call was made b/c the defender made contact with the ball, not b/c he made contact with the backboard. Whether or not it was GT is a different debate concerning judgment. I've never found debates about whether or not an particular play was GT to be very enlightening.

As far as a "rattling basket following a backboard slap", that's only relevant if the ball falls off the ring due to the vibration. The ball being ABOVE a rattling basket means nothing.

bob jenkins

crosscountry55 wrote
When the ball is above a rattling basket following a backboard slap, how does that not fall under the BI rule?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see that. I agree (upon further review) that the the player's hand contacted the backboard. It doesn't appear to be hard enough to cause any problems.

crosscountry55

Raymond wrote
As far as a "rattling basket following a backboard slap", that's only relevant if the ball falls off the ring due to the vibration. The ball being ABOVE a rattling basket means nothing.

Ahhhh. Gotcha. Thanks.

Again, for all the readers out there, this is an NCAA rule, not an NFHS rule.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

crosscountry55

bob jenkins wrote
I don't see that. I agree (upon further review) that the the player's hand contacted the backboard. It doesn't appear to be hard enough to cause any problems.

I didn’t need to see it. I HEARD it in real time. That’s why I assumed this was a BI call. In analyzing that, I neglected to consider the possibility of GT (I just assumed the announcers used it as a blanket term as usual). But yeah, I guess GT is what C had. The signal is no different from the one where you award points for BI, correct?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JRutledge

crosscountry55 wrote
I didn’t need to see it. I HEARD it in real time. That’s why I assumed this was a BI call. In analyzing that, I neglected to consider the possibility of GT (I just assumed the announcers used it as a blanket term as usual). But yeah, I guess GT is what C had. The signal is no different from the one where you award points for BI, correct?

This is actually kind of semantics. This is mainly an NCAA rule that said that we are to count the basket on a slapped backboard. I think for this specific act, it is used interchangeably to call it BI or even GT when the NF never have such a rule. GT in NF rules only is about touching the ball and BI is about touching the ball or the basket/rim/net with the ball in a certain location at the time of the touch.

I get it and it is correct to call it what it actually is, but this is a relatively newer rule that you have to put out of your mind what was done for years. I know I say BI not thinking of anything other than we will count the basket if the backboard is hit hard enough to rattle the rim during a shot. But clearly, this is nothing related to either BI or GT in an NF game.

Peace

Raymond

crosscountry55 wrote
I didn’t need to see it. I HEARD it in real time. That’s why I assumed this was a BI call. In analyzing that, I neglected to consider the possibility of GT (I just assumed the announcers used it as a blanket term as usual). But yeah, I guess GT is what C had. The signal is no different from the one where you award points for BI, correct?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I always do the swirly finger thing for BI.

SC Official

Raymond wrote
I always do the swirly finger thing for BI.

How dare you use an unapproved signal. 😉

(Btw, this is what I do, too.)