Play I saw tonight in the NBA game but would like to discuss it from a NF perspective. Player A1 throws a pass across the court but hits the side of the backboard and bounces back to him. A1 has not moved. Is this a violation? If not, then at what point can it become a violation?

This is a really good question. Under NF rules, a ball that hits the front or side (which would include the top or bottom) of a backboard is to be considered the same as hitting the floor inbounds at that position, except the same rule says a ball that hits the thrower's backboard is not to be considered a dribble (NF 4-4-5). If the exception wasn't there, and a player threw the ball off his backboard, it would be the same as if he tossed the ball ahead of himself with reverse spin so that it would return to him without him having to move - and that would constitute a dribble and the end of a dribble. But the exception is there so that a player can shoot, have the ball hit the board and then get his own rebound on a missed shot. Without that exception, the game would be a lot different.

The other odd thing about this is that the rule uses the word "thrower's" and the definition of a "thrower" is one who attempts to make a throw-in (NF 4-41-1). Of course the Casebook refers to this person as the "thrower-in" all the time.

My opinion is that if A1 has not dribbled and throws the ball off his backboard (it would be considered a dribble if it went off his opponent's backboard) and the ball comes back to him without him having moved his pivot foot, there is no violation and he can then dribble. Of course if the throw was a legitimate shot attempt, it's just a rebound and there was a loss of both player and team control, so he can do whatever he normally could do regardless of whether he moved his feet or not.

I'm open to suggestions as to what the call would be if A! had already picked up his dribble prior to throwing the ball off his backboard and the officials felt the throw was not a legitimate shot attempt.

[Edited by Mark Padgett on May 26th, 2001 at 12:42 AM]

A1 (and even A!) can dribble again under these circumstances. There's a case that describes it -- I think it's in 4.

In the case I saw, it was not a shot attempt. So let's take that out of the equation. It was his own backboard.

As long as he throws it off his own backboard, I can find anything in the RB that would warrant a violation. If he dribbles, throws it off the BB, catches it and dribbles again, would you call a double dribble? I think that's a tough sell.

To add a twist, what if he's in his BC, throws the ball off his BB and the ball comes back to him. Do we have a BC violation?

Here's a corollary
 

Since it was not a shot attempt, there is no loss of team control. If the ball caromed into the backcourt where it was touched by a member of team A, you would have an over and back call. Try explaining that one!

As to the first point, if he had already dribbled, picked up his dribble, then threw the ball off his own backboard, caught it and dribbled again, certainly you would have an illegal (double) dribble, since there was nothing in the act of throwing it off the backboard that would allow him to dribble again. To me, this would be the same as if he threw the ball out in front of him, then grabbed it, then started dribbling again.

[Edited by Mark Padgett on May 26th, 2001 at 01:49 PM]

Re: Here's a corollary
 

I have to disagree with you Mark. 4.15.4c clearly states that this is perfectly legal.

<b>After dribbling and coming to a stop, A1 throws the ball:</b> (a) against the opponent's backboard and catches the rebound; or (b) against an official, immediately recovers the ball and dribbles again; or <b>(c) against his/her own backboard, catches the rebound and dribbles again.</b> Ruling: A1 has violated in both (a) and (b). Throwing the ball against the 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. <b>In (c), the action is legal as a player's own backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds, but does not constitute a part of a dribble.</b>

As far as the BC play, we discussed it recently on McGriff. I believe that by rule, it would be a BC violation, unless you ruled that the pass off the backboard was a shot attempt.

Re: Re: Here's a corollary
 

because it's not part of a dribble, is what makes the play as Mark described it a double dribble. He dribbles, then throws it against the backboard, which is not part of a dribble so the dribble is ended. Then it comes back to him. He catches it and dribbles it. But the first dribbled ended, didn't it? (Unless the ref rules it a shot attempt.)
How is this any different from dribbling, throwing the ball forward, and then catching it and dribbling on?

Mark, you and I can discuss it tomorrow, we have three games together. I wish Tony would be there, too!

The only thing I can think of to defend my position that this is a violation is that the case book uses the term "rebound", which by definition means it follows a try or tap. I still think that if the throw off the board was not ruled a try or tap, you would have a violation.

Now, having said this, the case book also mentions a "rebound" off the opponents backboard and we all know you cannot have a try or tap into an opponents basket.

I wish someone with good proofreading skills worked for the NF.

Juulie, I'm having trouble seeing any difference in the case book play and the play Mark described. It would appear to me that the plays are identical. The initial dribble ends in both plays. The ball is thrown off the backboard, the player catches it and starts a new dribble.

Mark, I don't think the word rebound makes their play a shot. If they had meant a try or shot, I don't think they would have wrote "throws the ball." I can't think of another word other than "rebound" to describe the ball coming off the backboard. Perhaps the NF's vocabulary is as limited as mine! :)

I believe they're telling us that this is a legal play.

Look up "rebound" in the definitions section of the rule book.

Yes, they are, which is another inconsistency in the language of the rule book.

I understand what the word rebound means but it's not limited to a shot coming of the backboard. The NF uses the term rebound throughout the casebook to describe incidents when your word "carom" might be used. That doesn't mean that the throw is considered a try.

4.4.4. After touching the official, the ball: ...(b)rebounds to the backcourt...

4.40.4B ...it hits the shoulder of: ...(b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket.

7.2.2 ...strikes B1 who is inbounds and rebounds in flight directly from B1 ...

10.3.8B ...The ball rebounds from B1's face...


It's getting more and more difficult to defend that position that you're talking about. Legal play. :)

My point is that the NF is not clear on their terminology and that is what makes for confusion in rule interpretation. I agree that they use the word "rebound" many times in the case book. However, apparently no one there knows their own usage is in conflict with their own definition.

I understand what you're saying. I argue that same point from time to time, as in the play when the thrower throws the ball at the official who is OOB. But I guess it gets to the point that the rulebook would be 4 inches thick if every single possibility is dissected. We can't always be so literal.

But I guess it gets to the point that the rulebook would be 4 inches thick if every single possibility is dissected.

I'm not saying that every situation should be covered in the rule book. The case book is the vehicle for covering the most likely situations. I'm just saying that if the terminlogy in the rule book was consistent, there would be less confusion. This would not require expanding the book, just correcting it.

We can't always be so literal.

Yes, we can. It's easy. They've had a lot of years to correct the book and all it takes is a good editor and proofreader.