Ball thrown to oneself off backboard - legal?

[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 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?

[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 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

A dribble has parts..such as throwing/hitting/batting as well as player control ...

bucky: Thanks for your reply. I decided to move the questions (and to delete them from this thread) that you responded to over to a new thread (Dribble). I didn't want my new questions (sparked by the LeBron James play topic) confused with my new questions. Can you please move your response over to the new thread? Otherwise Forum readers may be confused. Thanks.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

bucky: Thanks for your reply. I decided to move the questions (and to delete them from this thread) that you responded to over to a new thread (Dribble). I didn't want my new questions (sparked by the LeBron James play topic) confused with my new questions. Can you please move your response over to the new thread? Otherwise Forum readers may be confused. Thanks.

We're not confused. We stopped caring a long time ago.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk