Intentional Miss

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

9.5 SITUATION: 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)

Because it's equipment? It may be used? Be used to do what? Dribble again (not directly stated in the casebook play)? Even if it's definitely not considered to be a try by the official?

I would rather that the NFHS stated that in this situation any throw against one's own backboard is considered a try, in all circumstances, and thus the player can legally catch the ball, and legally start a new dribble.

Other than in this casebook play, where else is "equipment" considered to be relevant to an illegal dribble situation? If he threw the ball against a teammate's legal headband, or a teammate's legal wrist band, that had accidentally fallen onto the floor, could he then legally catch the ball, and legally start a new dribble?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would rather that the NFHS stated that in this situation any throw against one's own backboard is considered a try, in all circumstances, and thus the player can legally catch the ball, and legally start a new dribble.

Bad idea as that would then automatically make any foul a shooting foul....one that the offensive player may not deserve. All any offensive player would have to do is heave the ball at the backboard while getting fouled in order get an automatic shooting foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Bad idea.

Not my first one. Won't be my last. I guarantee it.

Note: I still don't like the "equipment" rationale in the casebook ruling.

[Adam]

Billy, I agree regarding the rationale, but it's not the only case play where the rationale is, well, irrational.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Billy, I agree regarding the rationale, but it's not the only case play where the rationale is, well, irrationale.

Fixed it for you.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Billy, I agree regarding the rationale, but it's not the only case play where the rationale is, well, irrational.
Billy, I agree regarding the rationale, but it's not the only case play where the rationale is, well, irrationale.

I've been trying to lay off my role as Grammar Police lately (lest I be accused of being a P*$#@$r or something), but isn't the one word an adjective and the other a noun? Hence, Snaqs is correct; BM wasted his cash on an unnecessary vowel.
I miss Byron.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Hence, Snaqs is correct; BM wasted his cash on an unnecessary vowel. I miss Byron.

I was just kidding. In case you haven't guessed it, I'm a real kidder.

I agree, I miss byron also. Where is he?