I'm starting a new thread related to the "Showboat" thread. While this appears to settle the debate that the situation in "Showboat" is legal, I cannot follow the logic stated in the case situation.

<b>"the action is legal as a player's own backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds, but does not constitute a part of the dribble."</b>

If A1 has ended his dribble, throws the ball off of his own backboard in such a manner that it is clearly not a pass, and then grabs the ball again, what difference does it make if this action constitutes "a part of the dribble?" All this statement implies, in my opinion, is that we can't call A1 for a double dribble.

This situation appears to fit perfectly within the definition of a travel. If A1's backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds, it appears that we have, at the least, A1 throwing himself a bounce pass--still a travel!

If I see this situation, I will not call a violation, because I believe the Case clearly states this is a legal move. I don't believe, however, that the reasoning in the Case for allowing this move is sound. If I'm missing something significant here, would someone please enlighten me?

PS. Another question, when A1 tosses the ball off of his own backboard, does team control end? Player control???

Absolutely. This is exactly why the play is legal and why it's not considered part of a dribble for the ball to be thrown off a player's own backboard.

Absolutely. This is exactly why the play is legal and why it's not considered part of a dribble for the ball to be thrown off a player's own backboard.

Okay, for the sake of discussion, <i>should</i> we consider that player/team control ended when A1 intentionally threw the ball off of his own backboard so that he could recover it?

I'm not arguing that the play is legal. I think the case book makes this absolutely clear. Logically I just think this is wrong. A1 is <i>not</i> shooting and has <i>not</i> lost control of the basketball. There is also nothing in the definitions--that I've found--that says throwing the ball against the backboard is a try.

The rule is written that way so that we don't have to worry about trying to judge whether it's a shot attempt or not every time someone chucks the ball up towards their basket...

I agree with everything you say. It's like this rule was written just for the purpose of allowing this move. It's like there's no way this could all be legal but the crowd will like it, so let it go. 4-12-3 states that team control continues until: a. a try or tap b. an opponent secures control c. the ball becomes dead None of those things happened here, so why would team control have ended?
Not a pass, not a dribble, not a try, not a violation...I'm getting a headache.

I see it as being just like the pass from behind the arc that goes in...3 points. It is now a 3 just in case it really was a shot. The official doesn't have to judge it and no long can judge it any thing but a 3. The ball off the backboard, is probably the same type of rule. If it hit the board, it must have been a shot attempt, so treat it like one, even if it is not really an attempt.

Me too...
 

<b>4-12-3 states that team control continues until: a. a try or tap b. an opponent secures control c. the ball becomes dead None of those things happened here, so why would team control have ended?
Not a pass, not a dribble, not a try, not a violation...I'm getting a headache.</b>

But this is what's bothering me. The backboard seems entirely inconsequential. I recall watching a Purdue game several years ago when Purdue attempted an alley oop. It was an obvious pass attempt--obvious from the manner in which the ball was thrown, the timed jump of the post players, and the reactions of the players afterward. The "pass" got nothing but net.

So again, why do we care about the backboard? If the pass is "so bad" that it goes in, oh well--them's the rules. I better stop before the headache gets worse...

Without the rule being written as it is, we would have to judge whether every ball that didn't draw iron or not, was a shot. Why do we need that in the game? That will happen a hundred more times than we'll see a player throw the ball off his backboard and then dunk it.

In fact, in 15 years of officiating, I have never had a player do this in one of my games.

Have you?

:eek: I haven't seen very many four foot 9 girls that could dunk, myself either.

Just kidding, I couldn't resist.