[just another ref]

Originally posted by bard
While this appears to settle the debate that the situation in "Showboat" is legal, I cannot follow the logic stated in the case situation.

"the action is legal as a player's own backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds, but does not constitute a part of the dribble."

If A1 has ended his dribble, throws the ball off of his own backboard in such a manner that it is clearly not a pass, and then grabs the ball again, what difference does it make if this action constitutes "a part of the dribble?" All this statement implies, in my opinion, is that we can't call A1 for a double dribble.

This situation appears to fit perfectly within the definition of a travel. If A1's backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds, it appears that we have, at the least, A1 throwing himself a bounce pass--still a travel!

If I see this situation, I will not call a violation, because I believe the Case clearly states this is a legal move. I don't believe, however, that the reasoning in the Case for allowing this move is sound. If I'm missing something significant here, would someone please enlighten me?

PS. Another question, when A1 tosses the ball off of his own backboard, does team control end? Player control???

I agree with everything you say. It's like this rule was written just for the purpose of allowing this move. It's like there's no way this could all be legal but the crowd will like it, so let it go. 4-12-3 states that team control continues until: a. a try or tap b. an opponent secures control c. the ball becomes dead None of those things happened here, so why would team control have ended?
Not a pass, not a dribble, not a try, not a violation...I'm getting a headache.