Ball Hitting Basket Ring
 

I know that the ball hitting the opponent's backboard is the same as the ball hitting the court in-bounds (4-4-5). Does that apply when the ball hits the basket?

Play: B1 gets a defensive rebound. B1 attempts a pass to B2 on the opposite side of the court. The ball hits (a) A's backboard, or (b) A's basket (ring), and rebounds directly to B1. B1 then dribbles. Ruling?

In (a) an illegal (double) dribble violation (see 4.15.1 C). In (b) ?????

I think the only thing you can have, by the book, is if B1 moved to catch the ball resulting in a travel as in. 4.44.3 C

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. As Bob is aware the ring/basket is not mentioned.
Also, the ball does not contact the floor or an official, so we have no rule that covers the described action.

Let's Go To the Videotape ...
 

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)

4-4-5: 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.

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

If It's Not Illegal, It's Legal ...
 

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".

Citation ...
 

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) ????

Down The Rabbit Hole ...
 

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

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.h...=0&w=300&h=300

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) ?????

Another Rabbit Hole ...
 

Here we go again.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.j...=0&w=300&h=300

Extreme Makeover ...
 

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.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Y...=0&w=300&h=300

For Young'uns Only ...
 

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.

The casebook play also specifically states "the ball hits B's backboard and bounces directly back to A1." Question: What if the ball hits B's backboard, then the ring and then to A1? Would it be legal for A1 to start a dribble? IMHO if A1 started a dribble I would rule a violation in all three situations (backboard only, backboard+ring, ring only) to be consistent in not giving A1 an unfair advantage not intended by the existing rule.

What advantage would A1 get if the ball came straight to him, didnt hit the floor and he didnt move?

I would consider the ball striking the ring at the opponents goal the same as hitting an official and then returning to A1.

Ball Hits Opponent's Backboard ...
 

Advantage ...
 

Just for fun: Fake a defensive opponent out of position?

Dribble ...
 

So it's a dribble?

4-4-4: A ball which touches ... an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual’s location.

But the ball didn't bounce directly back to A1. It touched something else, the ring. The whole point of OP was if the ball hit the ring instead of the backboard only, would it be legal to start a dribble? Some seem to indicate "legal" since the rule specifically says backboard only. I am asking if the ball hits the backboard, then the ring, then goes to A1 would it be legal for A1 to start a dribble since the rule specifically says the ball (from the backboard) must return directly to A1 which it did not.

Yet Another Rabbit Hole ...
 

My opinion: The pass against B’s backboard was still the start of a dribble, use "normal" rules to decide what can, or cannot, legally happen next.

Keeping only the ring (not ring and backboard) in the situation makes the interpretation less complex, not a lot, but a little.

http://www.dictionary.com/e/wp-conte...abbit-hole.jpg

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.“

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.

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

Clarification ...
 

... 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).

A Team’s Backcourt ...
 

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?

Transitive Property ...
 

Then a ball hitting the opponent's ring, flange, backboard, or frontcourt floor would all be treated the same, as a dribble (or part of a dribble).

Nice rationale bob jenkins.

Do we also include the opponent's net? I have seen cross court passes in one's backcourt hit the opponent's net.

The ball is unlikely to rebound to the player after just hitting the net -- but I agree the rationale should be the same. Maybe the NFHS will change this, or maybe someone can submit a change

Temporarily Caught In The Net ...
 

While the ball may not rebound, it could get temporarily caught in the net and just fall straight down (maybe with a little pendulum back track action) to the floor. If the passer gets to the ball first, picks the ball up, and starts a dribble, it's an illegal (double) dribble.

Call that and a head coach might end up sitting on a cold bus in the parking lot.

In Mike Goodwin's games the coach could get severe frostbite.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.P...=0&w=226&h=170

It could happen, probably won't, but I would not bet my house that it could never happen.

If we're going to go down rabbit holes, we might as well go all the way down the rabbit holes.

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.

Tossing Ball Into Air ...
 

... or catch it himself.

Wouldn’t that involve touching the ball?

Erratum ...
 

Missed that. Sorry. As I read it, my brain couldn't keep up with my eyes.