I disagree. Short if some incredible spin on the ball, only the rear surface of the board can apply a force to the ball that stops its forward movement. The bottom of the board can only direct the ball downward....it doesn't affect its forward movement. Likewise for the back...it doesn't deflect the ball downward, only back towards the OOB area.

So, if it hits the board and deflects directly downward (all forward momentum lost), it hit both the back and the bottom. If it continues to the front of the backboard, it hit only the bottom.

She Blinded Me With Science ...
 

It sounds like, and maybe I'm wrong here, that Freddy, AllPurposeGamer, BktBallRef, zm1283, and Camron Rust are all making this "easy" call based on the rebounding action, and Newton's Laws of Motion, of the ball after it hits a particular part of the backboard. That's fine with me, but it just seems "odd" to make a call without actually observing where the ball hits the backboard.

All I was saying it that is was actually very difficult to actually observe, to within a few fractions of an inch, exactly where the ball hits, relying on one's peripheral vision, at best. Especially when most of us, at the lead position, throughout the rest of the game, are trained to keep out eyes down, not up.

In any case, I'll be ready for my next game, carrying my trusty slide rule, clipped to my belt (we are neither discouraged, not are we encouraged, to wear belts in my little corner of Connecticut). When challenged by a coach on a call in this situation, I'll just whip out my slide rule and explain to him the rationale of my call based on sines, cosines, tangents, and cotangents. That will certainly shut him up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKBWW...eature=related

I say it is very difficult to observe within a few fractions of an inch, exactly where the ball hits, even if one is looking at nothing else. The direction of the rebound of the ball is about all you have.

Not to be a smarta**, but don't we have to judge if it hit either the bottom or the back?

I don't agree that only incredible spin would allow it to go straight down. A short girl plus an overhead throw that goes at a very steep angle hitting the pad on the bottom of the backboard.....just saying it can happen.

And I'm not saying the ones I have encountered went straight down. They probably went forward a little too. My memory isn't that good. My main point was that as the administering official standing under the basket, I really didn't think it hit the back.

I think we only need to judge whether it hit the back, even if it also hit the bottom.

This Ain't Soccer ...
 

If part of the ball is out of bounds, then the ball is out of bounds.

Veni, Vidi, and that's enough
 

. . . = Not all that significant.

. . . and that's really about all you need. :)

The Laws of Physics don't lie.
Trust the force, Luke.
Etc.
:D

Nope. The ball is flexible while the board is rigid. The ball can flex to hit both. But only one matters....back or not the back.
Still, if the forward momentum of the ball stopped, only a rear facing surface could do that. If it hit only the bottom, it would still continue a bit forward, even on a padded board.

The TC rule doesn't change how this play is administered. Previously you would have still given the ball back to the offense because the throw-in had not ended.