Thought provoking back court question.
 

During the first quarter A1 dribbles the ball across the division line and into the frontcourt. A1 then attempts an "alley-oop" pass to A2, near the basket. The ball strikes the ring untouched and ricochets directly into the backcourt. A1 hustles into the backcourt and is the first person to touch the ball after it went into the backcourt. The covering official rules a backcourt violation. Is the official correct?

This is another interesting question from the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association in South Carolina.

I will post the answer and reason later today.

I'm not calling this, but I can see how the official might since he didn't consider the pass to be a try. I'm calling it a try and therefore ruling this play legal.

Let me guess......

Catawba is gonna say that it's </b>not</b> a "try" by rule, and team control was thus never lost. Iow, yes, it's gonna be a backcourt violation.

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo. Ergo, loss of team control and <b>NO</b> backcourt violation. <i>Raison d'Etre?</i>---I ain't a mind reader. And neither is any other official anywhere either as far as I'm concerned.

It's strictly a judgement call as to whether it was a pass or a try. I don't know how Catawba can give out a supposedly <b>definitive</b> ruling on a judgment call, no matter how they rule.

Especially since if it goes in, instead of bouncing off the rim, we're going to give 3 points.

Scrapper, good point here.

Is that really relevant as to whether we call it a "try" or not?

Casae book play 5.2.1SitB says "A ball that is thrown into a team's own goal from behind the three-point arc scores three points, <b>regardless of whether the thrown ball was a try or not</b>".

In this case, you got 2 options:
1) If it's a try---> no backcourt violation.
2) If it's not a try ----> backcourt violation.

And....whatever option you pick is based on the calling official's judgement solely. If the ball hits the ring, it's a "try" as far as I'm concerned. I'd have to be a mindreader to rule otherwise, and I don't profess to be <b>that</b> good. :)

Let me think
 

"No, coach, despite the fact that it was launched toward the basket and hit the rim, I don't think it was a try. I have to go with the violation!" Pretty hard sell to me. NO call.

No more relevant than if it simply hits the rim. . . Didn't you recently say:

;)

Yup, sure did. That's because I'm deeming it a try, not being Carnac the Magnificent.

But....whether we give it it 3 if it goes or not <b>isn't</b> dependant on it being a "try" though. Iow, the "try" aspect just ain't relevant when it's used to determine whether a "3" was scored or not, but it is is relevant when it comes to determining whether a back court violation occurs or not. See what I'm getting at? Completely different. Apples and oranges. Yankees and BoSox.

I agree with the others that it's not a violation.

But, I'm using the case play where A1 dribbles, stops, throws the ball off his own backboard, then starts another dribble (legal play) as my justification.

Well, no duh. (Can you tell I have a pre-teen daughter?) But what IS the same is that you're considering it a try, regardless of the thrower's intent. Same thing with the 3-point basket.

So if A1 crosses the timeline and launches a 40 foot "ally oop" and is whacked on the arm during this "ally oop" try:

1) does he get 3 FT shots if the ball hits the rim?
2) does he get 3 Ft shots if the ball falls harmlessly to the ground?

Or 3), does the official suck air and not call a foul?

OK, I get you now.

A pre-teen daughter, eh? I'll bet you have a dog too. I can tell just from your posts that you're probably an animal lover as well as a devoted father.

Case book play 4.15.4SitC(c) is the one that Bob is referencing.