Pass Off Backboard

Camron Rust

rockyroad wrote
Not sure I agree with your #1.

4-4-5 tells us that a ball hitting the backboard is treated the same as a ball hitting the playing court. 4-15 tells us that throwing the ball off the backboard is not part of the dribble, but the dribble ends when the player catches the ball. So if he bats the ball up off the backboard and catches it, his dribble ends at the catch. He can't dribble again.

I think I agree with you. The player may have lost player control but not in a way that grants them the right to dribble again.

Even if the player catches the ball after having dribble, then throws it off the board, and then catches it again, the player is legal as that action is not considered a dribble. But it would be a violation to dribble again.

ronny mulkey

Camron Rust wrote
I think I agree with you. The player may have lost player control but not in a way that grants them the right to dribble again.

Even if the player catches the ball after having dribble, then throws it off the board, and then catches it again, the player is legal as that action is not considered a dribble. But it would be a violation to dribble again.

I'm not disagreeing but I am trying to understand what category this "throw" falls under. It's not a dribble but we aren't going to let the player dribble again? It's not a shot but we will let the player catch the carom and shoot it? If the carom goes into the backcourt, we won't allow him to retrieve it legally? If it's not a pass, shot, dribble or fumble, what rules are we using to make our assumptions on what this player may do legally after retrieving this "throw"?

Adam

ronny mulkey wrote
I'm not disagreeing but I am trying to understand what category this "throw" falls under. It's not a dribble but we aren't going to let the player dribble again? It's not a shot but we will let the player catch the carom and shoot it? If the carom goes into the backcourt, we won't allow him to retrieve it legally? If it's not a pass, shot, dribble or fumble, what rules are we using to make our assumptions on what this player may do legally after retrieving this "throw"?

You could consider it a special exception in the rules, only applicable to a specific situation (being allowed to catch the ball) but not stretched beyond. IOW, the player can catch the ball and dunk, as it's legal to throw the ball off of the backboard and retrieve it. He cannot, however, he doesn't get a new dribble or a fresh start in the BC.

Just thinking "out loud."

Camron Rust

ronny mulkey wrote
I'm not disagreeing but I am trying to understand what category this "throw" falls under. It's not a dribble but we aren't going to let the player dribble again? It's not a shot but we will let the player catch the carom and shoot it? If the carom goes into the backcourt, we won't allow him to retrieve it legally? If it's not a pass, shot, dribble or fumble, what rules are we using to make our assumptions on what this player may do legally after retrieving this "throw"?

Seems like more like a fumble.

However, if I see it in a game, I'm probably going to judge it to be a try unless it is obvious that it is not.

Rob1968

Cameron: "However, if I see it in a game, I'm probably going to judge it to be a try unless it is obvious that it is not. "
It seems that we're over-thinking this. The simplicity of the wording by the NF leads me to feel that they want virtually any ball thrown off a player's own backboard to be considered the same as a definite "try". Thus, all subsequent action(s) by that player are to be judged with similar parameters.

Camron Rust

Rob1968 wrote
Cameron: "However, if I see it in a game, I'm probably going to judge it to be a try unless it is obvious that it is not. "
It seems that we're over-thinking this. The simplicity of the wording by the NF leads me to feel that they want virtually any ball thrown off a player's own backboard to be considered the same as a definite "try". Thus, all subsequent action(s) by that player are to be judged with similar parameters.

You are, of course, right. But it is overthinking that can lead to understanding the true meaning of the related rules whether it is for this situation or others that will require knowing the exact meaning of the rules.
This is just good exercise in rules study.

Raymond

Rob1968 wrote
Cameron: "However, if I see it in a game, I'm probably going to judge it to be a try unless it is obvious that it is not. "
It seems that we're over-thinking this. The simplicity of the wording by the NF leads me to feel that they want virtually any ball thrown off a player's own backboard to be considered the same as a definite "try". Thus, all subsequent action(s) by that player are to be judged with similar parameters.

So A1 gets stuck behind his own basket, A1 throws the ball at the bottom flat edge of the backboard and catches it, he should now be allowed a new dribble b/c you are judging what he did as a try?

MD Longhorn

BadNewsRef wrote
So A1 gets stuck behind his own basket, A1 throws the ball at the bottom flat edge of the backboard and catches it, he should now be allowed a new dribble b/c you are judging what he did as a try?

He did use the qualifier "virtually". I think your sitch would be the exception to everything else he said.

BillyMac

Rob1968 wrote
The simplicity of the wording by the NF leads me to feel that they want virtually any ball thrown off a player's own backboard to be considered the same as a definite "try".

I disagree with the idea that the Federation wants us to treat virtually all of these as a try because if they wanted that, they would have said it, in either the rule, or in a case play.

However, unless it's some type of written rules exam, I believe that most of us, possibly including me, would treat virtually all of these as a try, whether we're backed by rule, or not.

deecee

BillyMac wrote
I disagree with the idea that the Federation wants us to treat virtually all of these as a try because if they wanted that, they would have said it, in either the rule, or in a case play.

However, unless its some type of written rules exam, I believe that most of us, possibly including me, would treat virtually all of these as a try, whether we're backed by rule, or not.

I see it's time for our annual, "Pass" of one's own backboard thread.

I am of the camp that anything, no matter how ugly it may seem, that is put towards one's basket is an attempt to score points. Even an alley-oop pass that goes in the bucket.

BillyMac

deecee wrote
Even an alley-oop pass that goes in the bucket.

Anybody remember the time when, if the "pass" came from behind the three point arc, and accidentally went in, that it only counted as two points? It's true. It's true.

Rob1968

Camron Rust wrote
You are, of course, right. But it is overthinking that can lead to understanding the true meaning of the related rules whether it is for this situation or others that will require knowing the exact meaning of the rules.
This is just good exercise in rules study.

I agree that your comment regarding the value of this discussion. The difficulty is in the application. Just last night, I had the wondeful, "But it was touched by the defense!" comment from a coach, when all the neccessary elements for my backcourt call were present . . .

Rob1968

BadNewsRef wrote
So A1 gets stuck behind his own basket, A1 throws the ball at the bottom flat edge of the backboard and catches it, he should now be allowed a new dribble b/c you are judging what he did as a try?

Because of this discussion, I'd consider not allowing a second dribble. But, it might be tempered by how much he!! I'd be willing to take, from the kid's coach, fans, my partner(s), at that moment . . .

Rob1968

BillyMac wrote
I disagree with the idea that the Federation wants us to treat virtually all of these as a try because if they wanted that, they would have said it, in either the rule, or in a case play.

However, unless it's some type of written rules exam, I believe that most of us, possibly including me, would treat virtually all of these as a try, whether we're backed by rule, or not.

Case Book 4.15.4 C (c) indicates that the NF considers the second dribble to be legal. (This is the simple wording I was refering to, earlier.)

Raymond

Rob1968 wrote
Case Book 4.15.4 C (c) indicates that the NF considers the second dribble to be legal. (This is the simple wording I was refering to, earlier.)

Only if it is judged to be a try. Otherwise there would not be the need for this portion of the case play: " in an attempt to score (try), "

Rob1968

BadNewsRef wrote
Only if it is judged to be a try. Otherwise there would not be the need for this portion of the case play: " in an attempt to score (try), "

Agreed. Has any of us ever seen, a) a player attempt to utilize this action? - b) an official call the second dribble a violation? The frequency of such actions must be minute.

Raymond

Rob1968 wrote
Agreed. Has any of us ever seen, a) a player attempt to utilize this action? - b) an official call the second dribble a violation? The frequency of such actions must be minute.

Because of this thread it will probably happen in my next game.

BktBallRef

BadNewsRef wrote
So A1 gets stuck behind his own basket, A1 throws the ball at the bottom flat edge of the backboard and catches it, he should now be allowed a new dribble b/c you are judging what he did as a try?

MD Longhorn wrote
He did use the qualifier "virtually". I think your sitch would be the exception to everything else he said.

So you would call a double dribble?

Not me. If it hits any part of the backboard other than the back, I don't care what he does with it if he catches it.

Raymond

BktBallRef wrote
So you would call a double dribble?

Not me. If it hits any part of the backboard other than the back, I don't care what he does with it if he catches it.

I wouldn't allow him to dribble again after catching it.

MD Longhorn

BktBallRef wrote
So you would call a double dribble?

Not me. If it hits any part of the backboard other than the back, I don't care what he does with it if he catches it.

I'm not sure that's in line with what they want us to call. This interp is giving a player a get-out-of-jail free card that's not intended.

Player dribbles, stops to shoot but gets stuck and doesn't shoot.. then hits the bottom of the basket on purpose with the ball and starts dribbling again? Are you really saying you'd have no violation for that?

« Previous Page Next Page »