I hate it when that happens.

The NCAA rule and the FED rule are the same on this issue.

It aint so bad, keeps me in check as far as humility & paying attention to detail :o

You sure about the ball having to go front to back or back to front? Side to side or diagonally would allow the ball the go over the backboard. Those sitch's would however be more difficult to see.

Just looked up the NCAA rule - it reads "over the backboard from any direction".

It is no harder than for a rectangular backboard. The fan boards still have vertical edges on the sides....if the ball is inside of that, it is over the top.

My opinion...

Its a matter of likelihood in combination with the original reason for the rule. The rule came about when Wilt Chamberlain's team would lob a baseline throw-in over the board for him to slam in. If I'm not mistaken, the NBA and most, if not all of D1, had converted to rectangular backboards by his time. It was a completely indefensible play...so they made it illegal for the ball to cross over the top of the board. There is rarely a "normal" play where the ball also goes over a rectangular board. As for fan shaped boards...they're much smaller and it is much more likely for a ball to go over the top in the course of normal play. Not wanting to stop the game unnecessarily and knowing that fan boards were used in places not likley to be affected by Chamberlain-like players, there was no need to illegalize it for fan shaped boards.

Side to side, perhaps. If it literally passes over the top of the board in a straight line parallel to the back board, this would be a violation.

If it's going diagonally, it's still moving from the front of the board to the back of the board (or from back to front). The point is that the ball has to be, at one point, physically in the partial plane directly above the glass for it to be a violation. Going between the support structures does not qualify.

Thanks, Camron. That is the first reasonable explanation of this I've ever heard.

Agreed. It makes sense, it's simple, and it's sufficient.

For those whose books are not readily at hand...

NFHS 7-1-2: ART. 2 . . . The ball is out of bounds:
b. When it passes over a rectangular backboard.

NCAA 7-1-3: Art. 3. The ball shall be out of bounds when any part of the ball passes over the backboard from any direction.

Had never really thought about it before, but I suppose a pass from one side of the key to the other, that passed over a rectangular backboard the long way, would also be illegal.

Question for the brain trust...How much of the ball must pass over the backboard? If only a portion of the ball passes over the corner of the backboard, is that illegal? Must it be the entire ball?

Technically, I can stand in the exact corner of the playing court and shoot a three. It does not count then? It HAS to go over the corner, from the back, to fall in.........

That's at the heart of my question. The rule seems pretty black and white, with no exceptions listed. Except that "over" needs a little more defining when we start thinking about things like the shot from the corner. And, of course, if we allow this shot (which I think we should), then you have to ask "how much over, or how far over, is 'over'?".

I think you have to go back to the intent of this rule. The intent was not to disallow a shot from deep in the corner. The intent was to prevent the indefensible plays, as Camron noted.

To me, this is a clear example of when the spirit and intent should overrule what would be a violation by strict interpretation of the written rule.

Two, I've seen balls shot from the corner go in that did not go over the glass. I know it didn't because they grazed the side of the glass on the way by.

I went and re-read the rule and then asked myself why it was in place. The best thing I can come up with is that it puts the defense at a disadvantage to steal, tip, etc. the pass when you're behind the board and pass it over the top to someone on the other side. That said, the defense has the exact same opportunity to block the shot in the corner that they have anywhere else on the floor so it shouldn't matter in that instance. Just my $0.02

Camron has told us the origin of the rule:

Agree about the intent. But the wording of the rule, and presumably the intent of the rule makers, don't limit its enforcement to just the Wilt Chamberlain play. Which leaves us with the need to determine where between the corner shot and the Wilt play the ball is enough "over" that it's a violation.

The rule is widely (if not accurately) known. So there's a reasonable chance that on any ball that comes close to passing over the backboard, a coach is going to ask for a call.