This happen last night in a HS summer league. The game was held at a local HS.

A takes the ball out after a made basket. A1 tries to throw a full court length pass. The pass is so high, that the ball lodges into a basket hoop, near the ceiling. To explain, the hoop was one of the side hoops that was put away electronically. What do you have and why do you have that?

Peace

Since it was a throw in, I say violation, spot back where the original throw in took place, especially if the baskets were outside the lines.

I don't have any rules or my book here to back me up, just a gut feeling. If it was during play, I guess a AP?

The ball seems to me to be clearly OOB. The result is a throw-in violation. The team that was defending the throw-in would be entitled to a designated spot throw-in at the spot of the previous throw-in.

The ball touched "overhead equipment" (even though that equipment was not in use for the game at the time), so it's OOB.

Chuck

Yep, ball hitting object outside the boundary lines is OOB. Pretty basic rule knowledge Rut, I'm surprised you didn't know that one.

Z

Hey Z, I know you're just yankin' Rut's chain, but to be fair, it's not quite as obvious as that. The ball didn't necessarily hit outside the boundary lines. It sounds like it hit something directly above the playing surface. And the rule I quoted is a little ambiguous about whether it's talking about equipment being used in the game (basket supports, shot clock, support wire, etc.) or if it's talking about anything above the court. I'm taking it to mean the latter.

If, however, somebody were to tell me authoritatively that it only refers to the supports for the basket, etc., then it doesn't seem to be covered in the rules. In that case, I would still call it OOB and blame it on 2-10 :)

Chuck

This is generally legal and in play if the official is wearing white shoes and the ball is easy to palm.

Typical of you Z to think this is a black and white discussion. I am asking what do you have, not whether I got the rule right or not. Or better yet, I did not say what we did or did not do. If you read my post, you will see I never gave what we did. But you probably knew that already? This play that happen I have never seen before and caused an interesting discussion between my partner and I and other officials there. And just like Chuck stated, we discussed the possibility of an AP and OOB ruling. Considering that this was not the ceiling and is not specificially refered to by rule. No casebook play covers this one. That is why I asked the question. I'm surprised you did not get that one either. :rolleyes:

Peace

I think I would have gone with OOB, but can see where an argument could be made for an AP situation because the ball lodged between the rim and backboard.

This sounds like an area where you could go either way, talk fast when explaining it to the coaches and pull it off even if you had no clue what call to make. I mean, if they knew the rules, wouldn't they be officials? :D

Actually, I never discussed the possibility of it being an AP situation. However, I think that you can actually make a case for the AP. You've only got 2 choices regarding the status of the "equipment" above the floor. Either it's in play or it's OOB (as I outlined in my last post). If the equipment is OOB, then the inbounder has committed a throw-in violation. I don't think there's any controversy about saying that.

If, however, you say that the equipment is in play, then you have a different situation. You have a throw-in that simply hasn't ended. The ball is live but there's no possession. So if you blow the whistle, you have created a dead ball when there is no team control. That would result in an AP procedure.

I would not rule that way, but I could at least see the logic of it if somebody wanted to go that way. Personally, I think that the "equipment" above the court is OOB and would call a throw-in violation.

Chuck

Now, Chuck, how simple does it get? "The ball is out of bounds when it touches the ceiling, <B>overhead equipment</b> or supports." If a side court goal, that's rolled up, isn't overhead equipment, what is? It's no different than if it hit a scoreboard, ceiling, bleachers, or a disco glitter ball over the court. It has nothing to do with whether the ball lodged or not.

It ain't that difficult. Even mick is making lite of it.

My only concession to the AP solution is that "overhead equipment" is somewhat ambiguous. It could mean anything that's overhead, like the disco ball. Or it could refer specifically (and only) to the equipment that is being used in the game; e.g., basket supports or wires that run all the way to the ceiling, the shot clock, a hanging scoreboard.

If someone were to contend that overhead equipment is only the stuff that is specifically related to the game being played at the time, then you could make a case for the AP. But as I've said, I think that it should be interpreted as "anything" that is overhead. I'm just trying to give Rut the benefit of the doubt.

Chuck

I'm thinking wrong rim and backboard here.

I also think everyone is reading way too far into the "overhead equipment" rule in 7-1-2d. The rule does not mention overhead equipment 'being used in the game' (as some have suggested), so it applies to all overhead equipment equally and without restriction.

I agree. But it is not explicit on that point.

It's not ambiguous. It <i>does</i> literally mean anything that's overhead. What term would you use to describe everything overhead? Whether the item has something to do with the game or not, it's OOB, if the ball hits it. You make it sound like it would be OOB if it hit a scoreboard but it wouldn't be if it hit a light that wasn't burning. That doesn't make sense. If it hits anything, it's a violation. Why does it need to be anymore explicit?

Are you playing debil's advocate? :)

How about instead of "overhead equipment", we substitute the phrase "any object above the level of the top of the backboard"? That's explicit.

Quote:

Whether the item has something to do with the game or not, it's OOB, if the ball hits it.

I agree. I've agreed all along. I'm merely pointing out another possible, plausible interpretation based on the wording of the rule.

Quote:

Why does it need to be anymore explicit?

Precisely b/c it's not explicit.

Chuck (Debil's Advocate, Esq.)