Rules questions...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2) Official deems this to be a pass, not a fumble, and the player did not start a dribble, or lift a pivot foot, before he passed: Player can legally either legally pick up the end of his "dribble", or he can legally continue his dribble by batting the ball to the floor.

Not quite correct, BillyMac: as the case you cite shows, throwing the ball against one's own backboard does not constitute the start of a dribble. The player can catch this ball and then dribble without violating in your situation.

That said, I doubt I would rule this a pass if it hits the rim and rebounds to the shooter.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm sure an esteemed member will be along shortly to help us out.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not quite correct, BillyMac: as the case you cite shows, throwing the ball against one's own backboard does not constitute the start of a dribble. The player can catch this ball and then dribble without violating in your situation.

"Ask and ye shall receive." (Matthew)

[Back In The Saddle]

In the first scenario, I'm thinking that an attempted long pass that hits the bottom and "bounces directly to the floor" has partially hit the back of the backboard, and would therefore be a throw-in violation. Obviously HTBT in order to really be sure what "bounces directly to the floor" really means.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

In the first scenario, I'm thinking that an attempted long pass that hits the bottom and "bounces directly to the floor" has partially hit the back of the backboard, and would therefore be a throw-in violation. Obviously HTBT in order to really be sure what "bounces directly to the floor" really means.

Why would you think that?

He said that the ball hit the "underneath portion" of the backboard, not the back of the backboard. The bottom of the backboard is in play. And....if the ball "bounces directly to the floor" either straight down or forward, that's perfectly legal also.

Legal play imo from the original description...unless he lied to us.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why would you think that?

He said that the ball hit the "underneath portion" of the backboard, not the back of the backboard. The bottom of the backboard is in play. And....if the ball "bounces directly to the floor" either straight down or forward, that's perfectly legal also.

Legal play imo from the original description...unless he lied to us.

Basic physics. He may have said it hit the underneath portion but his description of the action doesn't fit that conclusion.

The only way for the ball to loose all of its forward momentum and go straight down is from some contact with the back of the board. Contact with only the bottom surface of the board would have only changed the up/down component of the balls movement and the ball would have proceeded beyond the backboard.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Basic physics. He may have said it hit the underneath portion but his description of the action doesn't fit that conclusion.

The only way for the ball to loose all of its forward momentum and go straight down is from some contact with the back of the board. Contact with only the bottom surface of the board would have only changed the up/down component of the balls movement and the ball would have proceeded beyond the backboard.

I guess that the NFHS rulesmakers don't understand basic physics then. Years ago they issued a ruling on this that said that a end-line throw-in that hit the board and went straight down or forward was OK, but one that bounced backward towards the endline had to be a violation.

Stoopid NFHS rulesmaker monkeys.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I guess that the NFHS rulesmakers don't understand basic physics then. Years ago they issued a ruling on this that said that a end-line throw-in that hit the board and went straight down or forward was OK, but one that bounced backward towards the endline had to be a violation.

Stoopid NFHS rulesmaker monkeys.

Correct. Backboards have rounded padding. The ball can easily hit the padding without hitting the back of the backboard and go directly down. If the ball hits the back, it's not going straight down. It's going backwards.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I guess that the NFHS rulesmakers don't understand basic physics then. Years ago they issued a ruling on this that said that a end-line throw-in that hit the board and went straight down or forward was OK, but one that bounced backward towards the endline had to be a violation.

Stoopid NFHS rulesmaker monkeys.

I guess they don't. There is no way it can stop moving forward without somthing pushing it back...and the only thing that can do that is something facing back.

And it is only logical that the back facing part of any padding would be an extension of the back of the board itself.

That wouldn't be the first or last time someone issued a ruling void if any intelligence.