Fumbled Ball (cont)

[deecee]

This is one of the stupidest arguments on here to date. The assumption that one would throw the ball of ANY backboard and NOT move their feet is completely absurd. For all intensive purposes a player throwing the ball towards their basket/backboard is a shot attempt in my book. I'm not intelligent enough to read into every "may", "deem" or officials "point of view" in the rule book. I work with my limitations and just call it like I see it.

Ball towards basket = shot attempt.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by deecee

This is one of the stupidest arguments on here to date. The assumption that one would throw the ball of ANY backboard and NOT move their feet is completely absurd. For all intensive purposes a player throwing the ball towards their basket/backboard is a shot attempt in my book. I'm not intelligent enough to read into every "may", "deem" or officials "point of view" in the rule book. I work with my limitations and just call it like I see it.

Ball towards basket = shot attempt.

This I agree with.

However it is our job to judge intent, and simply throwing a ball against a backboard doesn't mean its a shot.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

However it is our job to judge intent, and simply throwing a ball against a backboard doesn't mean its a shot.

True.

However, that is the entire purpose of this case play. It does't have to be judged a shot but doing so, by way of this case, is effectively the same as it being a shot. It would be pointless to have this case play otherwise. What player is going to throw the ball off the backboard and stand still and catch it?Sometimes, you just have to apply some basic sense to the case play.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

True.

However, that is the entire purpose of this case play. It does't have to be judged a shot but doing so, by way of this case, is effectively the same as it being a shot. It would be pointless to have this case play otherwise. What player is going to throw the ball off the backboard and stand still and catch it?Sometimes, you just have to apply some basic sense to the case play.

The purpose is to show that you can double dribble off an official or opponents backboard. They deemed it important to remind us the ending of 4-15.1.

@Deecee

I've seen this play a few times: A1 tries to pass from under the basket and hits the bottom edge of the backboard and then he/she catches it.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Dad

The purpose is to show that you can double dribble off an official or opponents backboard. They deemed it important to remind us the ending of 4-15.1.

@Deecee

I've seen this play a few times: A1 tries to pass from under the basket and hits the bottom edge of the backboard and then he/she catches it.

Come on, lets be reasonable and realistic. This would only happen in a varsity game on an inbounds (lower levels sure maybe). If a player is trying to throw the basket out from UNDER the backboard and it hits the bottom of the backboard then it's pretty reasonable to say it's not a shot attempt. I didn't think I need to cover 360 degrees of hypothetical situations.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by deecee

Come on, lets be reasonable and realistic. This would only happen in a varsity game on an inbounds (lower levels sure maybe). If a player is trying to throw the basket out from UNDER the backboard and it hits the bottom of the backboard then it's pretty reasonable to say it's not a shot attempt. I didn't think I need to cover 360 degrees of hypothetical situations.

Fair enough.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Dad

A1 tries to pass from under the basket and hits the bottom edge of the backboard and then he/she catches it.

Nice scenario. Assuming he had already ended his dribble, can he legally start a new dribble?

[RefBob]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice scenario. Assuming he had already ended his dribble, can he legally start a new dribble?

If A1 has ended a dribble and throws the ball such that it hits the bottom of B's backboard A1 cannot even be the first to touch the ball. See NFHS Casebook 4.15.4 Situation C and Casebook 9.5. If A1 had not previously dribbled, he could recover the ball but not start a new dribble. See Casebook 4.15.1 Situation C and NFHS Rule 4-4-5.

If A1 has ended a dribble and throws the ball such that it hits the bottom of A's backboard, A1 may catch the ball but not start a new dribble. See Casebook 9.5. However, if the throw was deemed to be a try for goal, A1 can catch the rebound and dribble again. See Casebook 4.15.4 Situation C.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by requintero

If A1 had not previously dribbled, he could recover the ball (off B's backboard) but not start a new dribble.

Agree. However, while he couldn't catch the ball, and start a new dribble; he could just allow the ball to hit the floor, and keep dribbling.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by requintero

If A1 has ended a dribble and throws the ball such that it hits the bottom of A's backboard, A1 may catch the ball but not start a new dribble.

I like requintero's post, but some Forum members may disagree with him. There's also the question about moving feet, or stationery feet?

So just exactly what is the movement this ball called? It was not deemed to be a shot. The NFHS says that is not considered to be a part of a dribble. The ball doesn't unintentionally drop, or slip, from a player’s grasp, and player control is not accidentally lost, so it's not a fumble. It's not a pass, no such thing as a self-pass. It's not a tap as part of a jump ball (a jumper can move his feet between taps, right?). What the hell is it? It has to be defined by the rules before we can utilize the rules to address what can legally happen during the play, or after the play.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by OKREF

This I agree with.

However it is our job to judge intent, and simply throwing a ball against a backboard doesn't mean its a shot.

This is one where I don't care to "judge" intent. A player throws the ball towards the basket it's a shot attempt. Why else would they throw the ball that direction?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by deecee

This is one where I don't care to "judge" intent. A player throws the ball towards the basket it's a shot attempt. Why else would they throw the ball that direction?

I do see your point and could be persuaded into that line of thought. At least with that reasoning there wouldn't be any reason to judge intent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

This is one where I don't care to "judge" intent. A player throws the ball towards the basket it's a shot attempt. Why else would they throw the ball that direction?

I have actually done it while playing. I was well defended such that I couldn't get a good shot off but I could get the ball to bounce off the board. I do so, ran around the defender to catch the "rebound" and then made the shot.

This is also basically the self alley-oop we sometimes see off the board before a dunk.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I have actually done it while playing. I was well defended such that I couldn't get a good shot off but I could get the ball to bounce off the board. I do so, ran around the defender to catch the "rebound" and then made the shot.

This is also basically the self alley-oop we sometimes see off the board before a dunk.

I believe it is legal...without any doubt. Also, believe you threw ball against board, I suppose I believe u ran around a defender and rebounded ball. I do NOT believe u made the shot....😃

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Ball toward basket = shot attempt.

This would certainly be nice, but it's not the present rule.