I agree with BktBallRef 100%.

Own Backboard ...
 

9.5 SITUATION A: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the
ball against: (a) his/her own backboard; (b) the opponent’s backboard; or (c) an
official and catches the ball after each. RULING: Legal in (a); a team’s own backboard
is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used. In (b) and
(c), A1 has violated; throwing the ball against an opponent’s backboard or an official
constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is first to touch the ball after it
strikes the official or the board. (4-4-5; 4-15-1, 2; Fundamental 19)

Hey JR...just to play Devil's advocate here...

that case play is in regards to the Dribble Rule, which I know you are well aware. So are we using this case play to "sell" or "justify" the call?

Let us pretend that after the call...

... the player, that threw the ball from Backcourt, said to his teammate..."Hey Joe, I was PASSING that ball to you...why didn't you jump up and catch it?" (Team Control?)

...would you think that you missed the call with that statement?

Not being a smart-a$$ here...just discussing things.

This Is A Great Caseplay ...
 

Jurassic Referee has hit upon a great caseplay here. The case play never actually uses the words "shot", or "try", but rather implies that a shot, or a try, had to have taken place because that's only way that A1 can legally catch the ball without it being an illegal dribble:

NFHS 9-5: A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
ART. 1 . . . A try for field goal.
ART. 2 . . . A touch by an opponent.
ART. 3 . . . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by,
another player.

There's nothing in the caseplay to indicate that the ball was touched by another player, including an opponent. So the NFHS must have ruled this to be a try, because that's the only option left.

Thus, throwing the ball and hitting the backboard of the team in possession is always considered a try for goal.

I owe the good people over at 60 Seconds On Officiating an apology. They really did locate Jimmy Hoffa's grave.

Yet, it doesn't declare it a try....it doesn't even mention a try. The references don't refer to a try either. While it may be "like" a try in some ways, I don't really believe it is necessarily a try.

What other rule basis would there be for the case play, then?
Special exemption?

Egg, Meet Face ...
 

Here is the similar hypothetical play that I brought to the attention of 60 Seconds On Officiating:

A1, who has ended his dribble, throws an alley oop pass to A2. A2 gets blocked out at the last second and doesn't come anywhere near catching, or even touching, the alley oop pass. The pass from A1 hits the top right corner of A1's backboard and rebounds immediately back to A1, who catches the rebounded ball and dribbles out of the lane.

I've changed my mind. I now think that this is legal. Based on 9.5 SITUATION A, I think that 60 Seconds On Officiating may have been right.

These Are Trying Times ...
 

What else could it have been to be ruled a legal play. No other player, including an opponent, touched the ball. That only leaves try.

But the situation in point is not about the dribble violation. As stated above, the case does not mention a try, in other words does not say, "it's okay because it is considered a try." In the discussion at hand, whether or not it was a try is the key. If not, it is a backcourt violation.

The key is, if it's not a try, the other situations are also violations; including the guy who throws it off the BB before catching it and dunking it.

Either that, or this case constitutes a special exception. Where else does the description of a try include the phrase "a team using its equipment"??

It would be much simpler if it simply stated that if any player throws the ball off his own backboard, it shall be considered a try.

I think that would be legal also...the player "used his equipment" to get another dribble.

IMO...nothing to do with Team Control.

The idea being that the player had a legitimate reason for throwing the ball against his own board, as opposed to throwing it against the opponent's board.
Reasonable.

It makes no difference what his intent is. We can't read minds, nor depend on a player telling us what he meant to do.

Not Enough Technicals Fouls In The Whole Wide World ...
 

And thank God for that. It's bad enough that we occasionally have to hear what players, and coaches, say about our calls. Imagine if we had "hear" what they really thought about each and every call?