Geeze Camron, you just overstated your case again.

AT LEAST half of all possible camera angles will show the ball through the glass WITHOUT the ball going over the top - from the back.

Your rule of thumb does not apply to at least some of the views from the front. That number is what you're debating.

You're obviously very invested in your rule of thumb for some reason and I'm not at all invested in convincing you it's at best very misleading.

Good luck with it.

Not to mention that the camera angle from the endline doesn't have the ball blocking out any of the backboard before it goes "over".

Seems to me that a shot that goes over the backboard would need to pass the back side of the BB, at some point, to go over the back board.;)

Spirit of rule...
 

AND, why the words "...from any direction..."???

That means going over from front to back or back to front and not any shot that is taken from behind the front plain of the BB that does not directly go over the BB.

I thought it was so obvious that the ball was not behind the backboard if you see the ball through the glass from the back. The whole context of the discussion is about the ball passing over the top.

You just made my point for me. What is directly over? It is any position DIRECTLY over the backboard. How is a position 2-3" from end of the board any less above the backboard than a position 12" from the end? The DIRECTLY is refering to the position relative to the backboard, not the direction the ball is traveling.

Shipps shot, had it been just a little lower, would have bounced on the top corner and continued to the front...had it done so, would there have been any discussion? Lower still and it would have hit the back/side corner...perhaps more on the side.

It's not possible to pass over the side of the backboard. You can go around the side, but not over...geometrically impossible.

Umpire ???
 

I'm not a baseball umpire, nor do I play one on television, but isn't the foul pole actually the fair pole.

Science !!!
 

Let me explain:

http://re3.yt-thm-a04.yimg.com/image/25/m4/3055751015

Well, exactly!

Huh?!? Uhhh... I don't get it.

Deviation for original intent...
 

I understand that. I was questioning why the words "from any direction" were added to the rule, if the intent of the rule was originally for the throw-in situation.

The panal appears stumped...
 

Since no one has a response, I guess this will remain one of life's mysteries.:)

Sheesh...maybe the Rules Committees will recognize the confusion and rewrite the rule..."...if any part of the ball passes through the plane of the backboard, extended to the ceiling, in either direction...".