Backcourt violation
 

A1 brings the ball up from his backcourt and about 4 feet from the division line he launches a baseball type throw toward a teammate moving across the baseline toward the basket. The ball bangs off the backboard about a foot from the rim and low, bounces back, makes one bounce in the frontcourt and back into the hands of the kid that threw it, still in the backcourt. Backcourt violation? Since the ball never touched a player in the frontcourt, does 9-9-2 apply?

C'mon, take a Shot at it Yourself
 

Criteria for backcourt violation:

1. Team control
2. Ball gains front court status
3. Team in control is the last to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt.
4. Team in control is the first to touch the ball after it gains backcourt status

What say you?

Do you know for sure he wasn't shooting the ball?

Never had one of those before when the ball was already inbounds.

Oops, mis-read the OP.

Sounds like a shot to me.

59 Seconds On "Good" Officiating ???
 

According to the 60 Seconds On Officiaiting website this is always considered a try form goal:

"Throwing the ball and hitting the backboard of the TEAM IN POSSESSION is always considered a TRY for goal. Even though the attempt (a soft toss or a hard carom off the glass) does not look like a legitimate try for goal".

You could look it up:

Login

You could also look up the location of Jimmy Hoffa's grave on this website. I'm sure that it will be as accurate as some of their other information. Now try to "look it up" for a NFHS, or IAABO citation? Good luck.

One of the difficulties is in reconciling the "BC" interp with the "not a double dribble or travelling" interp.

You can reconcile these by determining that it's always a try (as 6-seconds does), or by adding an element of "intent" (and I'm not sure that's quite the right word). If the player intends for the ball to hit the backboard (or basket), then consider it to be a try; if they don't then judge it to be a really bad pass.

I appreciate the replies...
 

This is what why I called a BC violation. It really rather stunned me at the time because, I guess, it was so unexpected and happened so quickly. I probably wouldn't have questioned the call but for the hit against the backboard.
Like Snaqwells and BktBallRef mentioned, was this a try? That never entered my mind at the time and looking back I am still certain it was a failed pass. I'm not sure I could have enunciated this to anyone had they questioned the call without really thinking it through. Once I was able to get back into my rule book, I saw that 9-9-2 might also apply since the ball did not touch or hit anyone before ending up in the hands of the player who threw it.

+1

Play on

This all comes down to whether it's a try. As bob alludes to, it's the same concept for calling a double dribble or travel.

I can tell you, for me, if it hits the backboard, I'm considering it a try. I have no idea what's in the shooter's head.

If it's a try, then team control ceases as soon as he releases it, therefore he's allowed to recover the ball in the BC.

A la case book play 9.5(a)....

If it's a try when A1 throws the ball against the backboard, runs, catches and dunks it, (and it is) then it's a try in this case, too. Always.

Situational?
 

I might be inclined to call it a shot if it's near the end of a quarter or half. But, if A1 randomly throws a long ball from behind the division line with 2:34 to go in the 2nd quarter down by 7, I am not inclined to call it a shot.

JMO

Case book play 9.5(a)?