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)?

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?

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.

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.

Agreed.

Lucy, You Got Some 'Splainin' To Do!
 

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.

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

In that case, it should be a violation for the player who tosses off the back board and jumps up to dunk it.

Back, Back, Back, Back, Gone ...
 

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......:D

It's A Push, I Want My 10% ...
 

Can't win. Can't lose.

Yup.

See post #35.