Ball Hitting Basket Ring

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... the rules book specifies backboard in the passage which states that action constitutes a dribble ... the ring/basket is not mentioned ... so we have no rule that covers the described action.

Agree. If it's not illegal, it's legal.

Purpose and intent may handle it, but it's a stretch when the casebook play specifically, and only, mentions "backboard".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would treat the hall striking only the ring the same as if the player merely tossed the ball up into the air and caught it again.
My reasoning for doing such is that the rules book specifies backboard in the passage which states that action constitutes a dribble.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Purpose and intent may handle it, but it's a stretch when the casebook play specifically, and only, mentions "backboard".

Those seem to be the two options, I agree.

Would you rule the same if:

Play: A1 dribbles on a breakaway At the FT line,(a) A1 tosses the ball off his own back board, catches the ball in the air and dunks it. (b) Attempts to toss the ball off the backboard, but the ball hits the ring and rebounds to A1 who catches the ball in the air and dunks it.

Ruling: (a) legal. (b) ????

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A1 dribbles on a breakaway At the FT line ... Attempts to toss the ball off the backboard, but the ball hits the ring and rebounds to A1 who catches the ball in the air and dunks it.

Is bob jenkins's insinuating that this is an additional illegal dribble?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is bob jenkins's insinuating that this is an additional illegal dribble?

Just noting that all the rulings need to be consistent.

Play: (yes, it's impractical). A1, from the FC, throws the ball off of (a) B's backboard, or (b) The ring attached to B's backboard. The ball rebounds in the air to A2 who is standing the the FC. Ruling: (a) BC violation. (b) ?????

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A1, from the FC, throws the ball off of ... The ring attached to B's backboard. The ball rebounds in the air to A2 who is standing the the FC.

Here we go again.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... it's impractical ...

I find that by pushing rules to the limits, one can gain great incite into rules language (if one is not limited by what the NFHS publishes, or doesn't publish).

I'm the one who is often criticized by those who believe that my "twists and turns" in the same thread confuse things.

But it's not the case here.

This thread has a common theme of, "What's the location status of the ring compared to the backboard?", and every situation noted by bob jenkins pushes that point further along.

I find this thread to be fun and educationally invigorating, but we should prepare ourselves to never get any closure here, unless a "Mighty Mouse" shows up to "save the day" with an overlooked rule or casebook play citation (Nevaderef's area of expertise).

Or we may have to end up using "purpose and intent", and that's often very subjective.

And then we may have a problem comparing a "real" game call to a written test question.

[BillyMac]

Just for the young'uns out there. Unlike in football (and probably other sports) where a team defends its own goal, in basketball a team's own basket is the basket it's shooting at.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Just noting that all the rulings need to be consistent.

Play: (yes, it's impractical). A1, from the FC, throws the ball off of (a) B's backboard, or (b) The ring attached to B's backboard. The ball rebounds in the air to A2 who is standing the the FC. Ruling: (a) BC violation. (b) ?????

This one is easy. Backcourt violation in both cases (a) and (b).
Why? We have a rule which tells us that the opponent’s basket is part of a team’s backcourt. 4-13-2 “…A team’s backcourt consists of the rest of the court, including the entire division line and the opponent’s basket and inbounds part of the - opponent’s backboard.“

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

4-13-2 A team’s backcourt consists of the rest of the court, including the entire division line and the opponent’s basket and inbounds part of the opponent’s backboard.

Nice citation Nevadaref.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice citation Nevadaref.

and, part of why I'm asking -- if the basket is part of the backcourt, then shouldn't the ball hitting the basket be the same as the ball hitting the backboard?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Those seem to be the two options, I agree.

Would you rule the same if:

Play: A1 dribbles on a breakaway At the FT line,(a) A1 tosses the ball off his own back board, catches the ball in the air and dunks it. (b) Attempts to toss the ball off the backboard, but the ball hits the ring and rebounds to A1 who catches the ball in the air and dunks it.

Ruling: (a) legal. (b) ????

As you have written, case (a) is legal due to a casebook ruling. I’ll note that the rationale of that casebook play was modified just this year to make tossing the ball off one’s own backboard a try for goal.
Case (b) is more difficult because the ball striking the ring is not automatically considered a try for goal. For example, a pass which strikes the ring would not reset the shot clock should one be in use. Therefore, if the official does not deem this action a try, then it must be treated as a dribble which does not strike the floor. Now we must consider if the player who threw the ball lifted his pivot foot AND returned it to the floor prior to touching the ball again. If so, then an illegal dribble violation has occurred (what the NFHS casebook now labels a traveling violation, but used to list as an illegal dribble). If not, then the action is legal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Therefore, if the official does not deem this action a try, then it must be treated as a dribble which does not strike the floor.

Why isn't it just "tossing the ball in the air and catching it" -- as in the first play I posted?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why isn't it just "tossing the ball in the air and catching it" ...

... while keeping pivot foot in contact with the floor?

But it's more than that. If it hits the opponent's ring, it appears to be a dribble (or a part of a dribble).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why isn't it just "tossing the ball in the air and catching it" -- as in the first play I posted?

Yes, that would be fine too. The two thoughts are equivalent in this instance.

Since this action is not tossing the ball to another player it cannot be a pass and as the player is not throwing for goal (certainly not at the wrong hoop), it cannot be a try. That leaves us with the potential start of a dribble. One which has yet to strike the floor. So the player may not move his pivot foot to another location and then touch the ball again prior to it contacting the floor (or the backboard or an official).

I agree with Bob that the ball striking the ring at either basket when clearly not a try for goal must be treated in exactly the same manner.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So the player may not move his pivot foot to another location and then touch the ball again prior to it contacting the floor (or the backboard or an official) ...

... or catch it himself.