Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
I like the old casebook ruling better. The reason is that it simply said that throwing the ball against the team’s own backboard was a legal play. There were no other complications. This is an awful casebook ruling that merely takes judgment away from experienced officials.
|
I see your point about free throws, but I think that you are oversimplifying the old casebook play.
2020-21 NFHS Basketball Casebook 9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which the player throws the ball against: (a) his/her own backboard; Ruling: Legal in (a); a team’s own backboard is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used.
It say it's legal. It says it may be used. Used to do what? Used by A1 to end a dribble, pass or bounce the ball off of that team’s equipment, and then legally start a new dribble? What is allowed, or not allowed, to happen next? It was always too open ended for a casebook play, and needed to be more specific.
A team’s own backboard is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used is a complex, screwy rationale for something. For what? I was never really sure.
I like the new casebook play. I'm pleased that there is no longer mention of team’s “equipment”.
But now, instead of debating, here on the Forum, whether, on not, A1 can dribble again, we'll be debating whether, or not, A1 gets free throws for being fouled during a bad pass that hits the backboard.
It's six of one, half a dozen of another. Out of the frying pan into the fire?