inbound pass hits backboard
 

Last night I had an in-bounds pass from the back court end line. The throw went cross court and barely grazed the side of the opponent's backboard.

I called a violation, but now I think I kicked it.

Since the side of the backboard is in-bounds, this is legal, right?

Correct.

Case Book Play 9.2.2
 

Throw-In Violations 9.2.2 SITUATION A: Thrower A1: (a) causes the ball to carom from the wall behind him/her, or from the floor out of bounds and then into the court; (b) caroms the ball from the back of the backboard to a player in the court; or (c) throws the ball against the side or the front face of the backboard, after which it rebounds into the hands of A2. RULING: Violation in (a) and (b), since the throw touched an object out of bounds. The throw-in in (c) is legal. The side and front face of the backboard are inbounds and, in this specific situation, are treated the same as the floor inbounds.

rsl - Where did you administer the following throwin?

If the throw-in grazed the backboard then went more behind the backboard than in-front of the back board, then imo, the ball hit the back of the backboard. Your description doesn't sound like a violation.


Edit section:
Excellent point. I will amend my post by appending your post.

Same spot as original throw-in, but since I kicked the rule it does not matter a lot.

It definitely hit the side. It barely grazed the corner between the front face and side.

The backboard has 6 sides. Only one of them is out of bounds.

From how I read this, it's not necessarily correct. If it was thrown directly from the side, I agree. But if was thrown from any position in front of the backboard, then I disagree.

That's an excellent way to think about it, but I'm almost positive this rule has changed over the years. Not recently, but another side used to be OOB.

Not in the last 50 years afaik......

:confused: How could the ball be thrown or hit in front of the backboard? From the OP, the throw-in was from the throwing team's backcourt and hit the closest backboard--the opponent's. That's phyically impossible unless the thrower can pitch a helluva curveball.

I believe SamIAm maybe is referring to the play where an endline throw-in hits the bottom of the closest backboard. There was a case play that came out years ago that said that if the throw-in dropped straight down or went out into the court, it was legal...but if it rebounded back towards the endine, it must have hit the back of the backboard and thus was a violation.

For Every Action There Is An Equal And Opposite Reaction ...
 

I don't recall such a case play. I wish there were such a case play since it would make the lead's call a lot easier since the lead has so much to watch for already during an under the basket throwin, whether the throwin team is under their own basket, or is under their opponent's basket: throwin violations by either team, inbounds players setting screens, and trying to gain favorable positions, etc. To follow the flight of a throwin to see exactly where it contacts the back of a backboard is very often difficult to do. Whenever I have this play as the lead, which is about once, or twice, a season, I almost always, at best, get a look at the contact point "out of the corner of my eye". I almost never get a real good look at it. Maybe it's just me. Over almost thirty years, it's become part of my routine to, pretty much, never look up at the basket area as the lead unless there's a play where a foul may be called on an attempt at a blocked shot. You won't see me, as the lead, calling any violations for a pass, or a shot, going over the backboard. As the lead, my eyes are not looking anywhere near the height of the basket, most of the time. Hell, I've had two plays over the past five years where, as the lead, I didn't even know if the basket went in, or not, before the ball went out of bounds.

I would like to see such a case play if there was one. Perhaps Nevadaref could dig it up from his archives. I do recall the topic, as described by Jurassic Referee, being discussed here on the Forum. If I recall correctly, some posters included descriptions of such a play that included the mathematics and physics of such a play, to come up with the same conclusion as Jurassic Referee, but I don't believe that it was a NFHS interpretation.

You're right for the OP, as he said it was an end line throw in. I missed that part and got caught up in the "throw went cross court" portion.

Excellent point. I will amend my post by appending your post.