Dooling's try over the backboard

[zanzibar]

About a week ago I briefly saw this play on Sport Center's Top Ten Plays. Keelon Dooling's (sp) 15 foot jumper from the end line passed over the corner of the backboard and was successful. I don't even know what NBA team he plays for. I think they counted the goal. Did this happen the way I described? Did they count the goal? I have trouble with the applicable rule....7-1-2 note says the ball is out of bounds if the ball passes over the backboard. The casebook 7.1.2 says it is a violation if the ball passes "directly" over the backboard. As you see the word directly is added in the case book. Am I reading too much into the word directly? Could the rule's committee want over the corner from more than 3 feet out to be legal and a violation only if it goes straight over. Yes, I have seen the Larry Bird shot that was ruled illegal for passing over the corner, but that doesn't mean that the call was correct. Any comments, please. I'm especiaaly interested in the interpretation of what the word "directly" is inferring.

[w_sohl]

The play happened as you described and they did count it I think, didn't watch the game but saw the play on SC. I would have thought that they would have waved it off too. It looked kinda close so maybe it was a little difficult to see if it actually went over the backboard from the back.

[ChuckElias]

The rule reference for the NBA is VIII-2-b: "Any ball that rebounds or passes directly behind the backboard, in either direction, from any point is considered out-of-bounds."

Notice that "directly" is included in the rule. There is no case in my copy of the NBA case book (although my copy is an old one). The key is that the ball must directly over the backboard. They're not going to split hairs. The rule is there for 2 reasons: to prevent rebounding action behind the backboard and to prevent the old University of Kansas "inbound it to Wilt" play.

[deecee]

why would you waive that off -- he was at a tough baseline angle to the rim and put up a desparation shot -- it wasnt directly over the backboard and he gained no advantage whatsoever -- i would let it slide -- he was about 8-10 feet off the side of the backboard.

[zanzibar]

I still don't know what they mean by the word "directly" and since this play was allowed....I wonder if it's ok to be more than three feet away and the try pass over the corner of the backboard.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by deecee
why would you waive that off -- he was at a tough baseline angle to the rim and put up a desparation shot -- it wasnt directly over the backboard and he gained no advantage whatsoever -- i would let it slide -- he was about 8-10 feet off the side of the backboard.

You would waive the shot off if the rule interpretation says that it is illegal for the try to pass over the corner of the backboard from 10 feet on the base line.

[ysong]

Originally posted by zanzibar
I still don't know what they mean by the word "directly" and since this play was allowed....I wonder if it's ok to be more than three feet away and the try pass over the corner of the backboard.

Is the wording "directly behind" the backboard, or "directly over" the backboard?

If the workding is "directly behind" the backboard, dose it mean the ball only needs to enter the "horizontal shadow" behind the backboard to be OOB, regardless it is from front to back, or from right to left, or from up to down, or vice versa?

Thanks.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by ysong

Is the wording "directly behind" the backboard, or "directly over" the backboard?

If the workding is "directly behind" the backboard, dose it mean the ball only needs to enter the "horizontal shadow" behind the backboard to be OOB, regardless it is from front to back, or from right to left, or from up to down, or vice versa?

Thanks.

The wording is "directly over"

[ysong]

Originally posted by zanzibar

The wording is "directly over"

I just looked it up, the NBA rule says:

Section II-Ball
a. The ball is out-of-bounds when it touches a player who is out-of-bounds or any other person, the floor, or any object on, above or outside of a boundary or the supports or back of the backboard.
b. Any ball that rebounds or passes directly behind the backboard, in either direction, from any point is considered out-of-bounds.

Thanks.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by ysong

I just looked it up, the NBA rule says:

Section II-Ball
a. The ball is out-of-bounds when it touches a player who is out-of-bounds or any other person, the floor, or any object on, above or outside of a boundary or the supports or back of the backboard.
b. Any ball that rebounds or passes directly behind the backboard, in either direction, from any point is considered out-of-bounds.

Thanks.

Sorry for a vague post...I only want to know what the NF rule is. It is interesting that the NBA has the phrase "from any point". The NBA and NF are likely to have the same interp on this sitch. I still don't know exactly what "from any point"means.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by ysong
I just looked it up, the NBA rule says:

I think somebody posted the NBA rule about an hour and a half ago. . . See above!

Originally posted by zanzibar The NBA and NF are likely to have the same interp on this sitch. I still don't know exactly what "from any point"means.

I don't know what would make you think that it's "likely" for the NBA and FED to have identical interpretations. FED interpretation is that it's OOB if the ball passes over any part of the backboard. NBA interprets "directly" to mean pretty much "the middle of". You won't see this called in an NBA game unless the ball pass over the very center of the backboard. Like when a shot hits the rim and bounces up and over the backboard. Or when an inbounder throws the ball over the backboard to a teammate standing in the lane.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I think somebody posted the NBA rule about an hour and a half ago. . . See above!

I don't know what would make you think that it's "likely" for the NBA and FED to have identical interpretations. FED interpretation is that it's OOB if the ball passes over any part of the backboard. NBA interprets "directly" to mean pretty much "the middle of". You won't see this called in an NBA game unless the ball pass over the very center of the backboard. Like when a shot hits the rim and bounces up and over the backboard. Or when an inbounder throws the ball over the backboard to a teammate standing in the lane.

A few years ago there was a clip of Larry Bird shooting a 12 footer over the corner of the board and the ref was in the video waiving it no good. This has been talked about before on this forum. I saw that clip.

[BktBallRef]

I have heard it explained to mean that if the ENTIRE BALL passed over the backboard, then it was considered "directly" over the backboard. Therefore, if the shot was at such an angle that the ball was shot over the corner of the backboard but the part of the sphere did not cross over the backboard, then the shot woul be legal.

An example from another sport: baseball. A pitch catches the corner of the plate. STRIKE! But the entire ball did not pass over the plate, only part of the sphere did. That's similiar to a ball passing over the backboard but the entire ball not passing directly over.

Tha's my understanding of the rule and how it was explained to me.

[ysong]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I think somebody posted the NBA rule about an hour and a half ago. . . See above!

Now I get your attention.

Care to comment on where I am wrong in the thread of "confused by traveling rules" too?

Thanks.