Backcourt violation

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

How can you agree with that in light of the language used in casebook play 4.15.4SitC(c) that says it has to be a try? What's the call according to that case play if you judged it as a pass instead of a try?

I love arguing both sides......

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I love arguing both sides.

Can't win. Can't lose.