9.5 says a player's own backboard is "legal equipment" so it isn't double/illegal dribble violation when A1 ends his dribble, throws it off his board (not a try) and catches it. If A1 did this at the opponents basket or an official it would be illegal dribble. I think we should be able to agree generally, that 9.5 expands the rights of A1 when he throws the ball off his board.

You are taking this play that expands A1 rights and using the wording which does the expanding (throwing ball off own board is not a dribble) and restricting A1's rights by calling travel if he moves to retrieve the ball. I'm assuming you are saying since throwing the ball off his backboard is not a dribble, A1 travels when he moves to catch it.
Consider this, if you throw me a pass in the backcourt i can throw ball off opponents backboard and run and get it. if you throw me a pass i can then throw it off the official and run and get it. Those are considered dribbles. However, under your interpretation, if you pass me the ball and i throw it off my backboard, never having dribbled, i can't run and get it..even though my backboard is "legal equipment."

I agree that 9.5 says throwing ball off the backboard isn't a dribble. however, it is still something. when you say he can't retrieve it you are making it as if it didn't happen... a player is running to catch a pass to himself. I think the "legal equipment" phrase means something more. After all, there's nothing inherently illegal about throwing the ball off the opponent's backboard or an official.

9.5 is meant to expand rights of A1. Using its language to then call travel has the effect of restricting them. That isn't its intent in my view.

Finally, the college play says A1 ends dribble, throws ball off backboard, follows it (runs) catches it while both feet in the air and then dunks. Under your interpretation the play would have been illegal the moment A1 caught the ball off the board. He ran and retrieved it. The fact that he dunked it afterwards shouldn't matter. That's not what it says.

I don't recommend anyone call the play travel if the player runs to catch the ball off the backboard or double dribble if he then puts it on the floor after the catch. Everyone will have to decide for themselves. The end….

Excellent analysis and you convinced me.

Legal ...
 

9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which throws the
ball against his own backboard and catches the ball. RULING: Legal.

Very clear. Legal. No rule basis, just this casebook play, but, nevertheless, the NFHS says that it's legal. It's there in black and white.

Retrieving Legal, Dribbling Illegal ...
 

Partially agree.

Retrieving the ball is legal, not according to the rules, but according to the casebook play, the NFHS says that it's legal. It's there in black and white.

9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which throws the
ball against his own backboard and catches the ball. RULING: Legal.

Dribbling again? I'm of the the opinion that the player can't dribble again. I see nothing in the rules, or in the casebook, that allows him to dribble again, assuming that it's not deemed to be a try.

9-5: A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended,
unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
ART. 1 A try for field goal.
ART. 2 A touch by an opponent.
ART. 3 A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by,
another player.

Your argument that the player can't dribble again after catching the ball can certainly be made with rules support.

Here's what I'd say I guess...The case book plays themselves are authoritative, approved by committee etc.
9.5 says a player's own backboard is part of its "team's equipment" and "may be used." Throwing the ball off of your own backboard is an event that needs to be accounted for. It's not like throwing a pass in the air, running after it and catching it. To me it IS like throwing the ball off another player etc. 9.5 says the backboard may be used and the player can catch the ball. There is no further limitation stated. I consider 9.5 as an addition to 9-5. I'd like 9-5 to have an article 4 saying a "throw off his backboard" but I think I can get there from 9.5. The case play effectively adds an article 4.

How many have ever seen a player throw the ball off the board and catch it when it wasn't a try?

When he throws it at the board, consider it a try. Problem solved.

Several times.

Here are several examples...most from NBA games, some in HS and NCAA games.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjjccjNUbIU
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzDJpG1mhTk
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zNnLxdpLCk
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLGKEfEiOm0
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXlo8AgpHAQ
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0QYg08oPFU

and the list could go on. It isn't that rare.

Not one of those looks anything like a try. In no case were they attempting to shoot it on the bounce.

The first bold, keep in my that how I interpret the written rules and how I actually officiate are not 100% in line. By book, I would argue this could be called a travel, but it'd be a giant headache and I just hope I never see it. If I do, there's almost no way I'm blowing my whistle.

Second part, when reading case plays it's pivotal to read the rule references. In the college case play it references 5-1.1 which says a player may go and retrieve a ball after an attempt at a shot. While the case play may look similar to the NFHS case play it's inherently different for this very reason. I keep trying to point out that the COLLEGE play is referring to a shot while the HIGH SCHOOL play is not referring to a shot.

Comparing these two plays is useless as they are entirely different. Unless, any throw at the backboard is supposed to be considered a shot, but that's a stretch.

I don't disagree with how you're calling the play. I just don't believe the book gives any literal evidence of it.

I think it would be a disaster to ever call it travel. There's an argument that a player can't dribble after retrieving it but i believe the language in 9.5 stating that the players own backboard is a "team's equipment" and "may be used" is the equivalent of throwing it off another player. I will let the player dribble again. Others will have to decide.

as far as the college play goes..it is the exact same play as the throw off board run and catch that we have been talking about. 5-1-1 is simply the definition of a try and 5-1-5 defines a dunk. Neither speaks about retrieving the ball after a try. None of those cites are listed imo to establish that the original throw off the backboard is a try. The "dunk" is a "try" for goal and the reason, imo, those cites are listed. we also have the actual words/substance of the play itself... and Camron has posted the plays. Those throws in his videos clearly aren't tries. I think the plays are exactly the same and the college play is the correct interpretation.

Anyway, folks will have to make their own decisions as I said earlier.

[QUOTE=Dad;986568] While the case play may look similar to the NFHS case play it's inherently different for this very reason. I keep trying to point out that the COLLEGE play is referring to a shot while the HIGH SCHOOL play is not referring to a shot.[QUOTE]

*astutely differentiated.

[QUOTE=Kansas Ref;986576][QUOTE=Dad;986568] While the case play may look similar to the NFHS case play it's inherently different for this very reason. I keep trying to point out that the COLLEGE play is referring to a shot while the HIGH SCHOOL play is not referring to a shot.Both plays involve throws off A1's own backboard that are not tries. The fact that the college play ends in a dunk isn't a factor.

And for the record, the plays are not exactly the same. And I can screwup with the best of them. Think I'm good with this one.