Fumbled Ball (cont)
 

Thanks for all the posts on my fumbled ball scenario...one response got me to thinking ... and that response was "that you cannot travel without the ball!" Makes lots of sense ...It did make me think of 3 hypothetical scenarios however... I would appreciate your expertise

In all three scenarios ... the offensive Player has picked up his dribble in the back court

A In A the offensive being closely regarded decides to roll the ball on the floor away from the double team ...while his chances may be slim to be the first to get to the ball ..lets say he or she does ...is this a violation ... and if so what violation Player A guilty of>

In B and C ...same scenario trapped in the backcourt but near opponent's basket ... In B --- Player A throws the ball off opponent's backboard and then races to get the ball! In C ...Player A turns and shoots it at the goal and chases down the rebound ..what are the violations in these scenarios? And what would the violation termed ...Travelling...illegal dribble?

Fumble Definition
 

"A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the player unintentionally drops or slips from a player's grasp."

All of these scenarios are in the case book. Read it over and over again...and when you think you've read it enough read it another 10 times. I read it all the time. If a player ends a dribble then rolls the ball and is first to pick it up it is an illegal dribble. Throwing /shooting ball against opponents backboard is a dribble if player first to touch it.

If I'm holding the ball and throw it over your head, take 5 steps and catch, that is travel. That isn't really "excess foot movement WHILE HOLDING the ball but it is still travel by casebook plays. Read, read and read more. All the time....good luck

9.5.3 of the NFHS Case Book seems to cover some aspects of your (A) hypothetical. A1 is dribbling and ends the dribble. A1 attempts a pass and (in 9.5.3 of the Case Book) the ball hits B1. A1 can recover the loose ball and dribble again. There is no violation because A1's pass was touched by or touched another player (Rule 9-5-3). (This would be the same result even if the ball had been first touched by A2.) If B1 had not touched the ball (your scenario), then if A1 recovered the ball and started a new dribble, this would be a Rule 9-5 illegal dribble violation. (Also see Case Book 7.1.1 Situation D.) If A1 recovered the ball without it first having been touched by another player, but DID NOT dribble again, then there is no violation. Or if A1 gets to the ball and (if possible) immediately starts dribbling it, then there is also no violation. (See Case Book 7.1.1 Situation D.)

Regarding your scenario (B), under 9.5 in the Case Book if A1 throws the ball against the opponent's backboard and is the first to touch the ball, this is Rule 9-5 illegal dribble violation. (Note: A1 could have thrown the ball against her own backboard.)

Regarding your scenario (c), under 4.44 Situation B of the Case Book, if A1 "attempts a try" (defined in Rule 4-41-2 as basically a legitimate throw for a goal), but shoots an air ball and is able to get the rebound before the ball hits the floor, there is no violation.

When you know the rule and definition of a try you will have an answer to this one.

Ahhhhh, I forgot that in the OP's scenario A1 is in their backcout. So when they turn and shoot at the goal presumably they are shooting at their opponent's basket. Therefore, this is not a "try" because under Rule 4-41-2 a try is an attempt by a player to score 2 or 3 points by throwing the ball into their own's team basket. Therefore, if A1attempted a shot at their opponent's basket, managed to get the rebound before it hit the floor this would be a travelling violation as in 4.44.3 Situation C of the Case Book. Thanks for the clarification.

Not entirely true, unless it was ruled an attempt at a shot. Own backboard is part of a teams equipment(example: Jersey).

Thanks for all of the responses ...just to continue the discussion

In my related earlier post back on April 7 "Travelling or Fumbled Ball"
BEAREF posted: "Without possession of the ball a travel violation is not possible".
And in this my current post: "Fumbled Ball(cont)"
JeffM posted: "A fumble is the accidental loss of player control (of the ball) when the player unintentionally drops or slips from a player's grasp"

I agree with the posts with all three of the "hypos" something illegal has occurred
BUT in my mind a query still exists .... if you can't travel without the ball ... and the player in the 3 hypos does not have the ball .... there seems to be an inconsistency here ...is it just because a player inadvertently loses control of the ball due to a faulty maneuver of his own doing that we ignore that he or she was able to move to a different part of the court!"

I understand it is in the casebook ...but is it written this way in the rulebook ...it seems a bit contradictory to me in one instance it is okay to go after and retrieve the ball and in another it is a violation of some sorts...

There is no penalty for accidental loss of the ball. There is a penalty for doing something illegal purposefully.

Actually, it is.

The ruling is that a ball thrown off a player's own backboard my be legally retrieved by that player without regard to whether you think it was a shot or not.

It is matter of applying the spirit of the rule. When a player tries to be clever in an attempt to circumvent a rule, it is often considered as if they had violated that rule anyway.

Some of those cases are enumerated, some may not be.

Example:
A1 obtains possession of the ball while laying on the floor...legal.
A1 sits the ball on the floor and is no longer holding the ball...legal.
A1 stand...legal.
A1 picks up the ball...illegal....traveling.

Even though A1 did not hold the ball while moving the or standing up, this is considered an unfair attempt to circumvent the rules and is to be considered as if A1 were holding the ball the entire time as far as the traveling rule goes.

Tossing the ball into the air and running to catch it before it hits the floor is rules a violation under similar thinking.

Citation Please ...
 

Agree.

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)

According to this ruling, can said player legally start a dribble if he had already ended his dribble before the ball hit the backboard (assuming the official deems this not to be a try)? Also, this ruling doesn't stipulate whether, or not, the player moves his feet during this situation. What other "equipment" (why the NFHS quotes?) may be used in this manner? Headbands?

This not my favorite casebook play. In my opinion this citation provides more questions than answers. I wish the NFHS would expound upon this play and give a more complete answer.

How about: Any ball thrown off a players own basket, or backboard, is to always be considered a try? Now that would be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately the NFHS hasn't made that ruling yet.

While it has many of the effects of a try, it really isn't. Thus, your suggestion isn't quite fitting.

I think that, yes, the player can then dribble. The player can move his/her feet.

I believe the idea is that, in order to remove ambiguity in the action, treat it as if it were a shot (don't call any violations) except that it isn't a since it isn't an attempt to throw in into the basket. So, if it doesn't hit the board at all, the player would still be subject to traveling since it wasn't a shot.

Not A Shot ...
 

Rule citation please (assume the player already ended his dribble and the official deemed this play not to be a shot).

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.

Where does it say anything about being able to throw it off your own backboard and moving both feet to retrieve it? It doesn't count as a dribble if you throw it off your shoes/shorts/jersey/etc. You still can't run to get it.

See above. 9.5.

Read it yourself, my point still stands. When is equipment anything other than something you wear? This is an exception in that you can throw the ball off the backboard and catch it without it being a dribble. You can not throw it off the backboard, take steps, and then catch it.

Wrongly stated, it's not even an exception. It's just considered equipment. The rules for an illegal dribble still stand. Nothing even hints at being able to circumvent the rule(s).

Save the attitude...please....Equipment is "other than something you wear" when the ball is thrown off your backboard. The backboard is your "team's equipment." As I said earlier, see 9.5. Only said as a reference and not as smart....s

Now, you think the play means I can throw ball off my backboard but, if not a try, I can't move to catch it. When, in the history of basketball, have you seen such a play? Never...what you may have seen is the player throw ball off his backboard, run and dunk, or like Michigan play posted here long ago.

You can read 9.5 the way you are but I think it's wayy to narrow.

And..the backboard is the "teams equipment." Clearly I can't bounce the ball off of my own foot, run and catch it in air... but if you are on my team and I throw it off your "equipment"(shoe) I can do whatever I want. To say that the backboard is the same as a player's own shoe or shirt doesn't work.

I think the case play and the "equipment" language comes out of thin air when it comes to rules but they want the specific play I mentioned above to be legal. Too narrow for me to agree that the play means player can throw it off backboard but can't move to get it. That never happens so no need to have a play saying it legal...

It isn't so explicitly spelled out but the whole point of the case play is to declare that throwin it off your own backboard ends player such that ut allows for the player to dribble again, supersedes the travel rule, etc

While it isn't from the NFHS book, the rules around this are exactly the same and here is what the NCAA book says...

I was trying to point out the case book doesn't say you can take steps or dribble again. Only that if you throw it off your backboard and catch it it doesn't count as a dribble. In my mind the rule book is narrow and should probably just follow along with NCAA, and if they are, at least state it clearly.

I don't like explaining rules by using rules from another level. I would say it isn't even spelled out slightly. The only conclusion I can come to is throwing it off the backboard isn't a dribble. There's no feasible way for me to conclude, in NFHS, that it's okay to start another dribble after throwing it off the backboard.

Either you can throw it off your backboard and take steps/start another dribble, or you can do neither. Any middle ground makes absolutely no sense(to me).

*What players wear (jersey, pants) = Uniform (NF 3-4).

*What players wear (other than jerseys, pants) = Player Equipment (NF 3-5).

*Backboard = Part of the court and its equipment (NF Rule 1).

*Dribble = Ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times. It is not a part of a dribble when the ball touches a player's own backboard. (NF 4-15-1)

*NF Case Book Play 4.15.1 SITUATION C:
A1 attempts a pass to A2 during pressing action in A's backcourt. The ball hits B's backboard and deflects directly back to A1 who catches the ball and: (a) passes the ball to A2; or (b) starts a dribble.
RULING: The pass against B's backboard was the start of a dribble which ended when A1 caught the ball. In (a), the pass is legal action. In (b), it is a violation for a second dribble. (4-4-5; 9-5)

I'm far from perfect when it comes to some of my posts but it took me all of five minutes to find these in the rule book. It actually took longer to post them.

He's talking about A1 throwing ball off his backboard..not Bs. 9.5 says it is legal...not double dribble etc. what he was/is contending is the offensive player who throws ball (clearly not a try) off his own backboard, cannot take steps to retrieve the ball. He can throw it off his backboard (not a dribble cause his equipment) but if takes steps to get it-travel. I contend that 9.5 is broader than that and allows steps before ball caught. That is the play that is seen..albeit rarely.
Now the rules don't really support the case play but it is there.

Your point being what? These don't answer anything. I already stated your bullets, so this isn't any new information. Your assumption on what equipment is or is not is off, but that's just semantics and NFHS's typical use of language.

Bullets aside, for some reason you posted about A throwing off of B's basket. This isn't at all what's being discussed. A throwing off of A's basket is not a dribble.

Edit: I'm inclined to apply the rule with Camron's logic and it's how I've thought it should be written. I just despise how it's not clear in the NFHS rules. You can apply the rule either way and can defend both sides.

Got this all muddled between the hypothetical in the OP and what Dad is arguing. Either way, it doesn't hurt to have a case play from Rule 4 since that's where a dribble is defined but Cat you're right, Rule 9 goes a little more in depth.



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.

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.

*wow you sound like my lawyer

[QUOTE=requintero;986287]9.5.3 of the NFHS Case Book seems to cover some aspects of your (A) hypothetical. A1 is dribbling and ends the dribble. A1 attempts a pass and (in 9.5.3 of the Case Book) the ball hits B1. A1 can recover the loose ball and dribble again. There is no violation because A1's pass was touched by or touched another player (Rule 9-5-3). (This would be the same result even if the ball had been first touched by A2.) If B1 had not touched the ball (your scenario), then if A1 recovered the ball and started a new dribble, this would be a Rule 9-5 illegal dribble violation. (Also see Case Book 7.1.1 Situation D.) If A1 recovered the ball without it first having been touched by another player, but DID NOT dribble again, then there is no violation. Or if A1 gets to the ball and (if possible) immediately starts dribbling it, then there is also no violation. (See Case Book 7.1.1 Situation D.)

It seems to me that Case Book 7.1.1 D is referring to a player who had not been dribbling, and then ended the dribble, before attempting a pass. However, the scenario being discussed is regarding a player who had dribbled, and had ended the dribble, before attempting a pass. Thus, in this case, recovery of the attempted pass, constitutes a second dribble, if the player is the first to touch or recover, the ball, and upon being first to touch the ball, a violation has occurred.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What you highlighted and what you said are contradicting each other. Am I missing something?

In an attempt to score (try)

If you shoot the ball off your own backboard in an attempt to score, then it is legal. You cant just throw it off the backboard and retrieve it. It must be considered a try for goal.

I agree with this.

Really?:confused:

You said (not attempting a shot) but the case book play says "in an attempt to score(try)"

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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....😃

Lots Of Unanswered Questions ...
 

Actually, according to 9.5 SITUATION, you can. The question being discussed is regarding what the player can, or cannot do, after retrieving the ball off the backboard, assuming that the player has already ended his dribble, and the official deems this not to be a shot. Can the player legally start a new dribble (as after a try)? Also, does it matter whether, or not, the player moves his feet before retrieving the ball off the backboard?

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)

Good Post ...
 

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

Try Again ...
 

How can you agree with the second part of OKREF's post? It's in direct opposition to the caseplay. A player can just throw it off of (his) backboard and retrieve it, especially if he doesn't move his feet (which is not mentioned, one way, or the other, in the caseplay).

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)

Wishful Thinking ...
 

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

The present rule leaves it open to be OO and a poor adjudicator of the game.

Hmm. 4.15.4 C says you can only do this if it is considered a shot.

Read it again when u get a chance and 9.5. The rule 4 play doesn't say u can only do it if it is a shot.

I've read it, and it does say in an attempt to score a try, the way I read it, if it isn't an attempt to score it's not legal.

Alright, you are reading the words correctly...if it is an attempt at a try A1 can do anything. However, I don't like your interpretation. Its a huge jump to look at what A1 can do and declare all other things are illegal.

Read 9.5 also.

[QUOTE=Rob1968;986398]Yes, that is definitely my understanding. A1 in possession of the ball, if he has not previously dribbled, may toss the ball and then be the first to touch the ball.
If his is the first to touch the ball and recovers the ball, he may not dribble. He may, however, bat the ball and then recover the ball (or continue the dribble after the first or subsequent bats.)

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.

Ever Since I Was A Little Baby, I Always Be Dribblin’ (Cheech and Chong, 1973) …
 

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.

And, Why Is The Word Equipment In Quotes ???
 

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.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

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.

Try, Try Again ...
 

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).

Some thoughts:

1. Per NFHS Casebook 9.5, A1 dribbles and comes to a stop. If A1 throws against B’s backboard and catches the ball this is a double dribble violation. (Clearly even if A is standing still, the throw against B’s backboard and subsequent catch is the start and end of a dribble.)

2. Per NFHS Casebook 9.5, if A1 dribbles, comes to a stop and throws against A’s backboard and catches the ball - this is legal. Therefore, the throw and catch against A’s own backboard is not the start and stop of a dribble – it is the use of A’s team equipment. (Also see NFHS Rule 4-15-1 which provides that, “It is not a part of a dribble when the ball touches a player’s own backboard.” The 4-15-1 rule reference is an exception to Rule 4-4-5 which states that, “A ball which touches the front faces or edges of the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds.” Without the exception in 4-15-1, A1 catching the bounce of his own backboard would be the same as A1 catching his bounce off the floor – which is the start and end of a dribble.) Now, if after catching the ball off his own backboard A1 dribbles (assume he has remained still this whole time), he will be guilty of a double dribble violation. (I am, of course, assuming that the throw by A1 against his own backboard was not a try for goal. If it was a try for goal, A1 could, of course, recover the rebound and dribble again.)

3. Interesting discussion of whether after the release of A1’s throw against A’s backboard, A1 may move his pivot foot to go catch the ball. If A1 moves his pivot foot and successfully catches the ball, my approach would be to rule that this is a travellng violation. See Casebook 4.44.3 Situation C. It's also interesting that the Casebook scenarios on throws against the backboard are in the dribbling sections - not the traveling section. So I don't think interpretations on permissible dribbles trump the traveling rules.

Thanks for considering.

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.

What does 9-5 tell us a player can do legally after ending the dribble?

Since one cannot take a shot at an opponent's basket but can on theirs I think it's pretty clear. Because if you want to microscopically analyze the line " Legal in (a); a team’s own backboard is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used."

A player can throw the ball of any equipment (like a brace) and restart the dribble.

The NBA perspective
 

No Triple Double? I have a question… | blog maverick

Back in 2004, the NBA took away a triple double because a player intentionally missed and got his own rebound. They ruled it wasn;t a real shot attempt, i.e., he missed on purpose to get an extra rebound.

But, they didn't call a violation during the game.

It's not in opposition. You're in the crowd reading things into this play that do not exist. I'm not saying your crowd is wrong, I'm saying only looking at the NFHS rules it never says it's legal to purposely throw it off your own backboard and then retrieve it/dribble again. And by retrieve I mean moving both feet to get the ball.

9.5 is only stating that throwing the ball of your own backboard isn't counted as a dribble. The only decent defense I have seen in this entire post was by Camron referencing an NCAA play. However, on the NCAA play the case book references being able to move/dribble again at an attempt at a shot. 9.5 says nothing about a shot, or references it at the end.

Anyway, I honestly don't care which way it's called as long as a crew is calling it consistent. Mainly I wanted to know if there was any definite knowledge as to how to call this play and so far I haven't seen it.

I think this is part of the disconnect. This case play says it must be considered a shot, therefore if it isn't a shot one could infer that it's a violation. This may or may not be a stretch, however it could be interpreted as that, and then it would be conflicting with rule 9.5.

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.

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.