Fumbled Ball (cont)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

No assumption has been made to what is/isn't equipment. Rule citations have been provided. There are different types of equipment, player and those things considered part of the court.

If the case play intended to only say it wouldn't be a double dribble, it would have stipulated that it was legal on if the player didn't move. However, it didn't. It is basically giving such a player carte blanche to start over as if he/she had released the ball on a try.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the case play intended to only say it wouldn't be a double dribble, it would have stipulated that it was legal on if the player didn't move. However, it didn't. It is basically giving such a player carte blanche to start over as if he/she had released the ball on a try.

I think this is a stretch and interpreting items based around another rule set(NCAA). While I'm not at all saying it's incorrect, I can't get there on paper. The only thing I can know for sure is after picking up your dribble there is a backboard you can pass to yourself off of and one you can't. The rest is manipulating the rules if only going off of what's written in the NFHS rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dad

I think this is a stretch and interpreting items based around another rule set(NCAA). While I'm not at all saying it's incorrect, I can't get there on paper. The only thing I can know for sure is after picking up your dribble there is a backboard you can pass to yourself off of and one you can't. The rest is manipulating the rules if only going off of what's written in the NFHS rules.

Why would it let a player, after ending a dribble, let them throw it off the backboard if he/she was required to remain in the same spot? That would be pretty much useless.

All of the rules came from the same place. The underlying principles and concepts are the same. There are certainly differences but when the rules are the same, short of explicit rulings to the contrary, a reasonable and logical person would and should expect them to have the same interpretations.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are certainly differences but when the rules are the same, short of explicit rulings to the contrary, a reasonable and logical person would and should expect them to have the same interpretations.

*wow you sound like my lawyer

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why would it let a player, after ending a dribble, let them throw it off the backboard if he/she was required to remain in the same spot? That would be pretty much useless.

All of the rules came from the same place. The underlying principles and concepts are the same. There are certainly differences but when the rules are the same, short of explicit rulings to the contrary, a reasonable and logical person would and should expect them to have the same interpretations.

I never thought usefulness was the point. I read it within the context: look at the other two objects/people getting hit. All three made me think the case play was talking about accidental hits. So if A1 is trying to pass to A2 after picking up his/her dribble, it's a violation if they throw it off the opponent's backboard or official and are the then are the first to touch it. If it's off your own backboard and you catch it then it's not a violation.


The case play is talking about what is or is not a dribble. Not what you can or can't do after throwing the ball off your own backboard. The rules state when you're allowed to dribble a second time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dad

I never thought usefulness was the point. I read it within the context: look at the other two objects/people getting hit. All three made me think the case play was talking about accidental hits. So if A1 is trying to pass to A2 after picking up his/her dribble, it's a violation if they throw it off the opponent's backboard or official and are the then are the first to touch it. If it's off your own backboard and you catch it then it's not a violation.


The case play is talking about what is or is not a dribble. Not what you can or can't do after throwing the ball off your own backboard. The rules state when you're allowed to dribble a second time.

Actually, that is the point of the case play.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, that is the point of the case play.

No, it's not. 9.5.1 and 9.5.3 both talk about being able to dribble again. The only thing 9.5 states is after coming to a stop throwing the ball off your own backboard and catching it isn't counted as a dribble. Absolutely nothing about being able to run to retrieve it or dribble again.

Your only real evidence is an NCAA case play, which isn't good enough for me. It's talking about 5-1.1 which is an attempt at a shot. So yes you're allowed to run after an attempt at a shot and then dunk it. Two completely different plays. One is talking about catching an attempted shot and the other is not.

[Dad]

At least look at the rules 9.5 is referencing. There's nothing about an attempt at a shot. If you were correct they would have referenced fundamental 2, not fundamental 19:

A ball which touches the front face or edges of the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds, except that when the ball touches the thrower's backboard, it does not constitute a part of a dribble.

The college play is a shot. The HS play is not talking about a shot. I'm not seeing any "logical" way to connect the two.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Case book

4.15.4 C

After dribbling and coming to a stop, A1 throws the ball: (a) against the opponent's backboard and catches the rebound; (b) against an official, immediately recovers the ball and dribbles again; or (c) against his/her own backboard in an attempt to score (try), catches the rebound and dribbles again.
RULING: A1 has violated in both (a) and (b). Throwing the ball against the opponent's backboard or an official constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is the first to touch the ball after it strikes the official or the board. In (c), the action is legal. Once the ball is released on the try, there is no player or team control, therefore, A1 can recover the rebound and begin a dribble.

You may not throw it off either backboard and retrieve it. Since you can't have a "try" at the opponents basket, it will always be a violation. If the throw at your own goal is considered a try it is legal.

Originally Posted by Dad

No, it's not. 9.5.1 and 9.5.3 both talk about being able to dribble again. The only thing 9.5 states is after coming to a stop throwing the ball off your own backboard and catching it isn't counted as a dribble. Absolutely nothing about being able to run to retrieve it or dribble again.

Your only real evidence is an NCAA case play, which isn't good enough for me. It's talking about 5-1.1 which is an attempt at a shot. So yes you're allowed to run after an attempt at a shot and then dunk it. Two completely different plays. One is talking about catching an attempted shot and the other is not.

This says that after coming to a stop, throwing (not attempting a shot) a ball against your own backboard constitutes a new dribble. One can reasonably infer that if it isn't a shot it is not legal, even if it explicitly doesn't say that word for word.