I see your point. The rule's still basically the same, because we're supposed to interpret any throw off the backboard as a try. But that interp isn't explicitly stated, so it opens up the possibility that there could be a throw that wasn't a try.

With this change in the case play, this rules committee has essentially effected another unannounced rules change. This case play now seems to only allow for an attempt/try off the backboard to be a legal tactic...not just any throw like it has been for decades.

With this change in the case play, this rules committee has essentially effected another unannounced rules change. This case play now seems to only allow for an attempt/try off the backboard to be a legal tactic...not just any throw like it has been for decades. [/B][/QUOTE]Actually, decades ago there was a very explicit case play on this type of play. Maybe MTD Sr. still has it in his attic someplace- even though I think it was before he started officiating. The case play said that if a player threw the ball off the backboard and he then went and got it himself, without an opponent touching it or the ball touching the rim, then it was a straight judgement call by the official as to whether there was a pass or a try on the play. The FED removed that case play because of the judgement factor. There was simply too much inconsistency; you could show a sample play to 100 officials and 50 would call it a pass and the other 50 would call it a shot. The case play was removed and new language inserted to try and take some of the judgement out of the pass/try.