Backcourt violation

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Case book play 9.5(a)?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

... 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?"

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

IMO...nothing to do with Team Control.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

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?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We can't read minds.

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

World's second oldest official joke....

Can I get a technical foul foul for what I'm thinking?
No.
Good. I think you're an azzhole.

[Camron Rust]

For those who assert that the ball hitting the backboard is to be considered a try with no judgment involved, consider these questions....

Will you call a shooting foul when A1 is fouled when throwing an overhead alley-oop pass to A5 (exactly like they've already done 10 times that night) but the foul causes the pass to go a little high and hits the far edge of backboard instead of being caught? Two or three shots or the ball OOB?

If A5 catches the ball similar to the previous play when the ball is just off the backboard and is still above and near the rim such that it just might go in, how may of you are going to call goaltending on A5 (the backboard in this question is only relevant given the specific situation we're discussing, not GT in general)? If hitting the backboard makes it a try, this would be GT.

A3, at the FT line, gets fouled when trying to pass the ball to A4 cutting from the corner. Due to the foul, A3's can't release the ball cleanly. The pass is not touched by any B player but hits the corner of the backboard. Is that a try?

The fact that hitting the backboard grants another dribble doesn't remove the need to judge whether it was a try or not. I think we can come up with several examples of the ball making contact with the board that are not a try.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The fact that hitting the backboard grants another dribble doesn't remove the need to judge whether it was a try or not. I think we can come up with several examples of the ball making contact with the board that are not a try.

Well thought out post. However, how do you explain the ruling in 9.5 SITUATION A such that this is not an illegal dribble?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Well thought out post. However, how do you explain the ruling in 9.5 SITUATION A such that this is not an illegal dribble?

One of the problems we have is that there is another case book play....4.15.4SitC(c) that uses the specific wording of a player throwing the ball against their own backboard "in an attempt to score(try).". In the RULING, it also says "Once the ball is released on a TRY, there is no player or team control, therefore, A1 can recover the rebound and begin a dribble."

And that's why it can be argued both ways with some legitimacy imo.

My personal take is that I'm too stoopid to read minds. If someone throws it against the backboard, I'm considering it as being a try.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If someone throws it against the backboard, I'm considering it as being a try.

So you agree with the guys over at over at 60 Seconds On Officiating that "throwing the ball and hitting the backboard of the team in possession is always considered a try for goal".

I originally thought otherwise, but 9.5 SITUATION A now has me agreeing with them. I've already moseyed on over there and apologized. Hopefully they'll put me back on their email list, and stop deleting my comments.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

...that's why we get the big bucks...to make JUDGEMENT calls.