Throw in/backboard

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I had a brain cramp last month and blew the whistle when the ball hit the bottom of the backboard on a backcourt throw-in.

Always a tough call. As the administering official, while counting, and preparing for the release of the ball, you're observing the throwin player, watching for side to side movement outside the three foot "box", as well as watching for forward movement that may take the inbounder onto the court. You're also watching the defender that's usually defending the inbounder, watching for movement across the boundary plane. There may also be screening going on near the administering official, that may have to be watched as well. And of course, you're always preparing to chop in the clock when the inbounded ball is touched on the court. When the ball hits the bottom, or back, of the backboard, the best look the administering official may have is with his peripheral vision, and there will only be inches between a legal hit under the backboard, and an illegal hit behind the backboard.

Man. I hate it when this happens.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Always a tough call. As the administering official . . . Man. I hate it when this happens.

I beg to differ with MillyBac, but it seems the laws of physics helps out a little here. If the ball, tossed courtward from OOB deflects off any part of the backboard and proceeds farther into the court, it cannot have hit the back of the backboard. If the ball deflects off part of the backboard and proceeds back again OOB, that same law of physics suggests it must have struck the back of the backboard. Even if it bounced straight downward, you wouldn't have anything, would you? It cannot deflect downward if it hit the back of the backboard.
Am I on the right track here? Or am I being a Drain Cleaner about it and grossly misunderstanding the difficulty making this call?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I beg to differ with MillyBac, but it seems the laws of physics helps out a little here. If the ball, tossed courtward from OOB deflects off any part of the backboard and proceeds farther into the court, it cannot have hit the back of the backboard. If the ball deflects off part of the backboard and proceeds back again OOB, that same law of physics suggests it must have struck the back of the backboard. Even if it bounced straight downward, you wouldn't have anything, would you? It cannot deflect downward if it hit the back of the backboard.
Am I on the right track here? Or am I being a Drain Cleaner about it and grossly misunderstanding the difficulty making this call?

I agree, this play isn't nearly as difficult as Billy is making it out to be for the exact reason you pointed out and it was how I was thought to judge the play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I beg to differ with MillyBac, but it seems the laws of physics helps out a little here. If the ball, tossed courtward from OOB deflects off any part of the backboard and proceeds farther into the court, it cannot have hit the back of the backboard. If the ball deflects off part of the backboard and proceeds back again OOB, that same law of physics suggests it must have struck the back of the backboard. Even if it bounced straight downward, you wouldn't have anything, would you? It cannot deflect downward if it hit the back of the backboard.
Am I on the right track here?

That's the way I call it. Doesn't seem that difficult to me.

[bob jenkins]

+3 (one for each of the three previous posts)

[zm1283]

+4, count me in. I have had partners call this numerous times when I am administering when it really didn't hit the back of the backboard. It happened a few weeks ago and the ball went almost straight down to the ground. My partner called it. I discussed it with him later and told him that I didn't feel it was possible for the ball to hit the back of the board and go straight down.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by zm1283

+4, count me in. I have had partners call this numerous times when I am administering when it really didn't hit the back of the backboard. It happened a few weeks ago and the ball went almost straight down to the ground. My partner called it. I discussed it with him later and told him that I didn't feel it was possible for the ball to hit the back of the board and go straight down.

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.

[BillyMac]

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

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.