Pass Goes Behind the Backboard, Through the Supports

[Adam]

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

On anything EXCEPT the George Mikan play, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense. So, in all likelihood, the entire ball will have to pass over the backboard to be a violation. (especially since we are at an angle to the backboard, and far enough away for depth perception to be an issue)

On the George Mikan play (not that I ever expect to see it), I might be more strict.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

I'm all for the coaches asking for that call. It will be a nice change of pace, instead of a steady diet of travel requests. I welcome variety

[Adam]

I've blown this call once, and nothing was said by the "offended" coach. Of course, I believe that was a sophomore game, and those coaches weren't particularly chippy anyway.

You're right, though; obviously the line is somewhere between the two plays. Personally, I put the line a lot closer to the Chamberlain/Mikan play than the shot in the corner. Legitimate shots can be defended normally.

To put it into practice, perhaps I lean towards thinking the entire ball has to be over the back board to qualify.

[Back In The Saddle]

I'm happy to go with the entire ball. That makes my life easier, it's relatively easy to judge, and is probably closer to the intent of the rule than any other option.

It doesn't sound like anybody knows of any official interp on this. Not even after the UCLA game last year?