Ball Stuck

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I thought it would be incredibly difficult for a ball to come to rest only on the top edge of the board. They could make the boards to make is impossible (rounded or sloped top) but it is so unlikely, that would be unnecessary.

Camron:

Lets assume that the ball actually comes to rest on the top of the backboard and is not touching anything OOB, but the ball came to be there from a Throw-in and not a Field Goal Attempt. Would you treat this the same as a Throw-in that wedges between the rim, flange, and backboard. I am inclined to treat this the same as the Throw-in wedging between the rim, flange, and backboard.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am inclined to treat this the same as the Throw-in wedging between the rim, flange, and backboard.MTD, Sr.

Around here, anytime the ball gets stuck that way we call it a "wedgie".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron:

Lets assume that the ball actually comes to rest on the top of the backboard and is not touching anything OOB, but the ball came to be there from a Throw-in and not a Field Goal Attempt. Would you treat this the same as a Throw-in that wedges between the rim, flange, and backboard. I am inclined to treat this the same as the Throw-in wedging between the rim, flange, and backboard.

MTD, Sr.

I might do so in practice but it is several feet from the flange/rim and it isn't wedged anywhere.

[just another ref]

The play currently under scrutiny is one which is not possible.

Somebody had to say it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The play currently under scrutiny is one which is not possible.

Somebody had to say it.

It might not be possible but it is probable.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It might not be possible but it is probable.

You inadvertently reversed this, right? It might not be probable, but it is possible.

Right?

(If something is not possible, then it cannot be probable.)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

You inadvertently reversed this, right? It might not be probable, but it is possible.

Right?

(If something is not possible, then it cannot be probable.)

No, I didn't. Anything is possible but probablities fall under the area of mathematics called statistics. (In this political season remember what Mark Twains said: "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." )

The probablity of something occuring could range from 0.0 to 1.0 (read: 0% to 100%). The probablity of this situation happening is (and I am just guessing here) 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,...,001, and it could even be smaller or larger.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

If you were sitting on top of the board holding the ball, and tried to place it there where it would remain when you took your hand off, that would be very difficult. If you stand on the floor and try to throw, shoot, bounce or otherwise propel the ball to where it winds up motionless on top of the backboard, touching only the backboard, I submit that this is impossible. That's right, it can't be done.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

No, I didn't. Anything is possible but probablities fall under the area of mathematics called statistics. (In this political season remember what Mark Twains said: "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." )

The probablity of something occuring could range from 0.0 to 1.0 (read: 0% to 100%). The probablity of this situation happening is (and I am just guessing here) 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,...,001, and it could even be smaller or larger.

MTD, Sr.

It's false that anything is possible. Some things are impossible, and thus have probability zero.

It's impossible to be taller than yourself, for example.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I might do so in practice but it is several feet from the flange/rim and it isn't wedged anywhere.

Camron:

While watching Sports Center this morning I decided to read the NFHS Basketball Rules Book (read the rules book, what a concept, I don't know why I didn't think of it earlier, ) and have come to the conclusion that we just might not have a Throw-in Violation.


To all of those reading this post, I am using the NFHS Rules but the NCAA Rules are the same except that the Sections are Article might be diffderent with the exception of R2-S3 which is the same Rule and Section in both Rules Sets.

NFHS R6-S7-A3 states: "The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when a held ball occurs, or the ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange."

NFHS R6-S7-A5 states: "An official’s whistle is blown (see exceptions a and b below)." ..... "EXCEPTION: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when:
a. Article 5, 6, or 7 occurs while a try or tap for a field goal is in flight.
b. Article 5 or 7 occurs while a try for a free throw is in flight."

NFHS R4-S42-A5 states: "The throw-in ends when:
a. The passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds.
b. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player out of bounds,
except as in 7-5-7.
c. The throw-in team commits a throw-in violation."

NFHS R7-S2-A2 states: "The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched." ..... "PENALTY: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation or technical foul occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot."

By rule, the ball is still Live and Team A has Team Control of the ball. One of the Game Officials can make the ball Dead by sounding his whistle. That mean's Team A's original Throw-in never ended and Team A should get the ball for a Throw-in. But that creates more problems. Normally the new Throw-in spot should be nearest the spot of the ball when it became Dead, but what if the original Throw-in was (a) an Alternating Possesion Throw-in or (b) a TF penalty. Where would the ensueing Throw-in be and in the case of (a) would this be a continuation of Team A's AP Throw-in or would Team A retain the PA for the next AP Situation?

All very good questions for discussion. Two observations: (1) There is something to be said for returning to the old rule where the throw-in had to be touched by a player on or off the court within five seconds of the start of the throw-in, meaning we ould have had a Throw-in violation by Team A; (2) go back to Jump Balls instead of AP Throw-ins, .

Which brings us back to NFHS R2-S3, and whether we can use it to solve our conondrum.

Enjoy the NFL Playoffs everybody, .

MTD, Sr.