IAABO Exam - Throws Ball Against Own Backboard ...

[BillyMac]

Attended a local IAABO Refresher Exam study group a few nights ago. We had about a dozen guys, some of whom are very good "rules guys". We didn't have an answer sheet. We spent a lot of time debating the question below, only find the answer immediately when we did a deep dive in the current casebook.

37) A-1 dribbles and comes to a stop. Then he throws the ball against his own backboard and catches the ball. The official rules a violation and awards the ball to Team B. Is the official correct?

We've had the same debate here on the Forum for as long as I've been a Forum member. Some advocating for this being an "automatic" try, others advocating that judgment is required to differentiate between a try and something else.

Our debate was based on the rationale of team’s “equipment” being used, with no mention of team’s “equipment” in the actual rulebook, just the casebook.

2020-21 NFHS Basketball Casebook 9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which the player 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)

Now we have the definitive answer to our long standing debate based on an unannounced change in the 2021-22 NFHS Casebook.

2021-22 NFHS Basketball Casebook 9.5 Situation: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the ball against: (a) the team’s 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 a try for goal. 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, 4-15-2; Fundamental 19)

Note that there is no longer mention of team’s “equipment” in the casebook play. I guess that the NFHS finally figured that this was a screwy rationale.

A throw against a team’s own backboard is considered a try for goal. Period. Cut-and-dried. No judgement needed. No more debate.

[BillyMac]

Fifty-nine views and not a single,"I knew all along", or, "I told you so".

[Zoochy]

Thanks for the Case Play update. I like the change. Throwing against own backboard is considered a TRY for a GOAL
I knew it

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

I knew it.

Pretend that I'm from Missouri. Show me where in the rulebook, not the casebook, it states that one can end a dribble, pass or bounce the ball off of that team’s equipment, and then one can legally start a new dribble?

Seriously, even the new casebook play has it's own rule citation limits. I don't believe that the rulebook (not the casebook) states anywhere that throwing a ball off of a team’s own backboard is considered a try for goal.

4-41-2: A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal.

That being said, I like the new casebook play much better then the old casebook play, and would have absolutely no problem using the new casebook citation for my ruling on this play, mainly because it's stated so simply: ... throws the ball against ... a team’s own backboard is considered a try for goal.; unlike the old casebook play that had a complex, screwy rationale that really didn't make much sense.

[Nevadaref]

I like the old casebook ruling better.
The reason is that it simply said that throwing the ball against the team’s own backboard was a legal play. There were no other complications.
Now that this action constitutes a try, if a player is fouled during such action we have to award FTs.

Think about this. A player who is clearly passing the ball towards a teammate for an attempted lob & dunk would not be entitled to FTs, if he is fouled while throwing this pass, should the ball strike the ring or accidentally enter the basket, but would now get FTs if the ball hits the top of the backboard.

This is an awful casebook ruling that merely takes judgment away from experienced officials.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I like the old casebook ruling better. The reason is that it simply said that throwing the ball against the team’s own backboard was a legal play. There were no other complications. This is an awful casebook ruling that merely takes judgment away from experienced officials.

I see your point about free throws, but I think that you are oversimplifying the old casebook play.

2020-21 NFHS Basketball Casebook 9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which the player throws the ball against: (a) his/her own backboard; Ruling: Legal in (a); a team’s own backboard is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used.

It say it's legal. It says it may be used. Used to do what? Used by A1 to end a dribble, pass or bounce the ball off of that team’s equipment, and then legally start a new dribble? What is allowed, or not allowed, to happen next? It was always too open ended for a casebook play, and needed to be more specific.

A team’s own backboard is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used is a complex, screwy rationale for something. For what? I was never really sure.

I like the new casebook play. I'm pleased that there is no longer mention of team’s “equipment”.

But now, instead of debating, here on the Forum, whether, on not, A1 can dribble again, we'll be debating whether, or not, A1 gets free throws for being fouled during a bad pass that hits the backboard.

It's six of one, half a dozen of another. Out of the frying pan into the fire?

[BillyMac]

Maybe get rid of the "own backboard" casebook interpretation completely. Use the rules as they already exist in the rulebook, and allow officials to use judgment.

Get rid of "equipment". Get rid of automatic try.

Official deems it to be a try. A1 can catch it and legally dribble again. If fouled, A1 gets free throw(s) for in the act.

Official deems it not to be a try (maybe it's a pass). A1 cannot legally catch it (treat backboard as the floor (rule change or casebook change may be needed for this, now it's just the opponent's backboard) and the pass as a dribble). If fouled, it's a common foul and penalize accordingly.