Fumbled Ball (cont)

[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 BillyMac

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.

WHO CARES????? If you get this wrong the one time in 10,000 games it may happen and not call or call it who cares???? Just guess. Your odds are 50/50. In my 15 years I have NEVER had this, and if it comes up Ill either blow my whistle or I won't. Im undecided. But I will decide when it does happen. Either way I'm ok with no beating this to death.

For the record this scenario has been covered and requintero would be wrong to deem it legal. Remember the whole it must be "judged" a shot thing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Just guess.

That's not the way I roll, and it's not the way that most great basketball officials, who happen to be Forum members, roll, especially during the off season, when we have to time to debate how many angels can dribble miniature basketballs on the head of a pin.

It's about a thorough understanding of the rules, including the definitions, of the game of basketball. It's only one component of being a good basketball official, but it's an important component. Certainly a good place to start.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

For the record this scenario has been covered and requintero would be wrong to deem it legal. Remember the whole it must be "judged" a shot thing.

And, for the record, deecee would be wrong. Nothing in the caseplay states that this is a try (shot):

9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the
ball against: (a) his/her own backboard; (b) the opponent’s backboard; or (c) an
official and catches the ball after each. RULING: Legal in (a); a team’s own backboard
is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used. In (b) and
(c), A1 has violated; throwing the ball against an opponent’s backboard or an official
constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is first to touch the ball after it
strikes the official or the board. (4-4-5; 4-15-1, 2; Fundamental 19)

Judging this a try makes this caseplay irrelevant (and a lot easier to deal with).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

It's the same as it's been for the past 20 years (or however long this forum has been around; and the case play did change slightly maybe 10 years ago).

IOW, some will have it one way; some will have it the other. (Especially) now that both points have been expressed, there's really no need to ask the "well, what is it?" type question.