Ball thrown to oneself off backboard - legal?

[Raymond]

I have a new interpretation:

If over 25% of the responses in a thread are from BillyMac, the question has already been adequately answered for everyone else.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If a player doesn't cause the released ball to contact the floor, then the action doesn't qualify as a proper dribble. That is precisely why it is illegal.

Which illegal act has the player accomplished (see below)?

9-5: Illegal Dribble: 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.

Let's make this as simple as possible and leave the backboard, and the throw out of it.

Play: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball that hasn't touched the floor.

Travel, or illegal dribble?

4-44-3: Travel: The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

It's not a try, nor a pass, nor a fumble.

I don't believe that it's even a dribble, illegal, or otherwise.

4-15: Dribble: ART. 1 A dribble is 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.
ART. 2 During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is
permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s).
ART. 3 The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball
to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

The ball is thrown into the air, not batted in into the air.

It's not a legal dribble. It's not an illegal dribble. It's not a dribble. It's a travel.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... a very rare situation ... When is the last time an HS official has even seen this play attempted?

Agree. I have never observed this play in any of my games, nor have I ever observed it in any high school game, and I've observed, or worked, a lot of high school games over almost four decades.

When it happens the first time, I want to call it correctly, not guess to myself, "LeBron James does this all the time so it must be legal. I'm not going to penalize a player because he's athletic." Nor do I want to guess to myself, "Wow that's a lot of steps so it must be a travel".

[bucky]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot believe (well I can) why Billy keeps arguing over a very rare situation with the possibility of some related play being what he thinks it is. When is the last time an HS official has even seen this play attempted? I know as a semi-college one myself, I do not think I have ever seen a player try this in a game. I think the last time I can think of is during the Duke-UNLV game when UNLV won running away over Duke in 1990.

Peace

Lebron recently did it although NBA rules obviously applied. I recall doing it in HS myself a million years ago.

By digging deep into the grammar/wording of various sources, I do indeed see BM's point. I also understand the points made by others.

9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the ball against: (b) the opponent’s backboard;RULING: In (b), 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)

4-15-1: A dribble is 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 one or several times. It is not a part of a dribble when the ball touches a player’s own backboard.

Interesting that the case indicates that throwing the ball against the opponent's backboard is a dribble but yet that action does not fit the definition of a dribble.

Indeed, there are loopholes in the rule/case books and often times they lead to weird/lengthy, and borderline irrelevant, debates. Makes it fun though doesn't it?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Lebron recently did it although NBA rules obviously applied. I recall doing it in HS myself a million years ago.

By digging deep into the grammar/wording of various sources, I do indeed see BM's point. I also understand the points made by others.

9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the ball against: (b) the opponent’s backboard;RULING: In (b), 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)

4-15-1: A dribble is 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 one or several times. It is not a part of a dribble when the ball touches a player’s own backboard.

Interesting that the case indicates that throwing the ball against the opponent's backboard is a dribble but yet that action does not fit the definition of a dribble.

Indeed, there are loopholes in the rule/case books and often times they lead to weird/lengthy, and borderline irrelevant, debates. Makes it fun though doesn't it?

Why doesn't it fit the definition of a dribble?

If you reference the definition of ball location, it does by way of saying the backboard is treated as if it were part of the floor....

Rule 4-4
ART. 4 . . . A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual’s location.
ART. 5 . . . A ball which touches the front faces or edges of the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds; see also 4-15-1.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Play: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball that hasn't touched the floor.

I don't believe that it's even a dribble, illegal, or otherwise.

The ball is thrown into the air, not batted in into the air.

It's not a legal dribble. It's not an illegal dribble. It's not a dribble. It's a travel.

Let's move forward, and not look back.

I think that I'm starting to get it.

Play A: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball that hasn't touched the floor.

4-15: Dribble: ART. 3 The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

After the player ends his dribble, he throws it into the air. We all know that a player, all by himself, no defense nearby, may occasionally start his dribble by throwing it into the air (the rule says thrown to the floor, but gravity will end up doing that eventually). So that's the start of a possible second dribble, and his subsequent catch of ball seals the deal and makes it a dribble for sure, more so, an illegal (double) dribble.

Play B: A2 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball off his backboard, runs several feet, catches it, and then dunks.

Now add in the throw subsequently bouncing off the backboard. Fundamental 19 tells us that 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.

So with no backboard involved in the play, it's an illegal (double) dribble.

But with the backboard in the play, the portion of the play where the thrown ball bounces off the backboard back into the hands of the player is not considered to be a part of a dribble (Fundamental 19) so it's not an illegal (double) dribble, so it's legal.

https://youtu.be/uAskXXKV2GU

This apparently legal NFHS "LeBron James play" has nothing to do with traveling, and/or foot movement, it's all about legal dribbling, and/or illegal dribbling.

The possibility of traveling (running to catch) was the shiny object that distracted me. With one rare exception, one must be holding the ball to travel.

Can anyone please confirm, or deny, the reasoning and logic behind this interpretation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

I do indeed see BM's point ... Makes it fun though doesn't it?

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but see my most recent post.

Agree, it is fun, especially in the summer, the off season. It also helps us to understand the rules.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you reference the definition of ball location, it does by way of saying the backboard is treated as if it were part of the floor....

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Lebron recently did it ... I recall doing it in HS myself a million years ago.

My best was to dunk a golf ball. I could never move up to dunking a tennis ball. A basketball was never part of the equation. Never. Ever. Not even close.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why doesn't it fit the definition of a dribble?

If you reference the definition of ball location, it does by way of saying the backboard is treated as if it were part of the floor....

Lol, you ask why it does not fit the definition of a dribble and then cite the definition of something else, ball location. Huh? I simply said it does not fit the definition of a dribble and indeed, it does not. Besides, that is regarding ball location, nothing else like dribbling/traveling/carrying/etc. IOW, it is treated as being inbounds when it hits the backboard, not treated the same as being a dribble.

Strange that it is neither a pass, shot, nor a dribble. What is it then? Strange that we can have a player have control of the ball, throw it against the backboard, change positions on the court, regain control of the ball in the air, and do these actions repeatedly.......and it is all legal....and nothing would go in the stat book other than elapsed time. No passes, no assists, no shot attempts, no rebounds, no etc. Not sure if that could happen any other way in the game of basketball.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My best was to dunk a golf ball. I could never move up to dunking a tennis ball. A basketball was never part of the equation. Never. Ever. Not even close.

I did not dunk it either, just threw it off the backboard to myself and then shot a lay-up.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Lol, you ask why it does not fit the definition of a dribble and then cite the definition of something else, ball location. Huh? I simply said it does not fit the definition of a dribble and indeed, it does not. Besides, that is regarding ball location, nothing else like dribbling/traveling/carrying/etc. IOW, it is treated as being inbounds when it hits the backboard, not treated the same as being a dribble.

Strange that is is neither a pass, shot, nor a dribble. What is it then? Strange that we can have a player have control of the ball, throw it against the backboard, change positions on the court, regain control of the ball in the air, and do these actions repeatedly.......and it is all legal....and nothing would go in the stat book other than elapsed time. No passes, no assists, no shot attempts, no rebounds, no etc. Not sure if that could happen any other way in the game of basketball.



I did not dunk it either, just threw it off the backboard to myself and then shot a lay-up.

The rule I quoted says the backboard is defined to be the same as the floor. Thus, the ball is, by definition, effectively being thrown to the "floor" when it is being thrown off the backboard. Thus it is a dribble.

ball which touches the front faces or edges of the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds

However, if you're talking about your own backboard, it too is the floor and would be a dribble, but another rule precludes that from being a dribble. Why? I don't know. The way the rules play out, it is being treated as if it were a try without it actually being a try. I guess is so that we don't have to determine if it was a try or not (unless there is a foul which necessitates that decision).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's move forward, and not look back.

I think that I'm starting to get it.

Play A: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball that hasn't touched the floor.

4-15: Dribble: ART. 3 The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

After the player ends his dribble, he throws it into the air. We all know that a player, all by himself, no defense nearby, may occasionally start his dribble by throwing it into the air (the rule says thrown to the floor, but gravity will end doing that eventually). So that's the start of a possible second dribble, and his subsequent catch of ball seals the deal and makes it a dribble for sure, more so, an illegal (double) dribble.

Play B: A2 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball off his backboard, runs several feet, catches it, and then dunks.

Now add in the throw subsequently bouncing off the backboard. Fundamental 19 tells us that 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.

So with no backboard involved in the play, it's an illegal (double) dribble.

But with the backboard in the play, the portion of the play where the thrown ball bounces off the backboard back into the hands of the player is not considered to be a part of a dribble (Fundamental 19) so it's not an illegal (double) dribble, so it's legal.

https://youtu.be/uAskXXKV2GU

This apparently legal NFHS "LeBron James play" has nothing to do with traveling, and/or foot movement, it's all about legal dribbling, and/or illegal dribbling.

The possibility of traveling (running to catch) was the shiny object that distracted me. With one rare exception, one must be holding the ball to travel.

Can anyone please confirm, or deny, the reasoning and logic behind this interpretation?

I agree.

Save

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... talking about your own backboard, it too is the floor and would be a dribble, but another rule precludes that from being a dribble ... The way the rules play out, it is being treated as if it were a try without it actually being a try.

I also find Fundamental 19 to be odd. I would love to know it's original intent.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have absolutely no problem ending this thread with, "I was wrong. Nice citations. Thanks for the clarification". And I promise to try to remember that for any future threads, or posts.

I was wrong. Nice citations. Thanks for the clarification.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do my questions (above post) have any similarity to past Forum discussions involving the following:

When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and touches the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. (from Misunderstood Rules)

Some (including me) said to wait to see if the airborne player touches the ball after it hits the floor, maybe it's the start of a legal pass, before sounding the whistle for a violation.

Others, if I remember correctly, said to immediately sound the whistle for the violation as soon as the ball hits the floor, not waiting for the airborne player to touch the ball after it hits the floor. Some may have even advocated for the violation and whistle without waiting for the ball to even hit the floor.

Certainly not the same, but is this topic (above) similar to deciding whether, or not, the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble?

Are they both about whether, or not, the start (or part of) of a illegal act, is the same as the illegal act itself?

Again, it's not about beating a dead horse (yet another metaphor), and the LeBron James play anymore, it's about a new question that came up on my journey to an interpretation for the LeBron James play.

A dribble has parts..such as throwing/hitting/batting as well as player control. Once A1 has ended his dribble, he can start another one by throwing (one part) it but then the subsequent control (another part) is what made it illegal. For me, the same logic applies to your case of a shooter, afraid of getting blocked, and releasing it to the floor. Everything is fine until the next part (touching the ball) makes it illegal. I am yet to witness any ref at any level call a violation before the ball even hits the floor. In fact, I have never seen one call it without the player touching the ball. I think that one could easily say the same about A1 (ended dribble) throwing the ball way from himself. No ref is calling anything until A1 touches the ball again.