Intentional Miss

Brick43

A-1 is just above the free throw line where he has picked up his dribble. Player B-1 is denying all of his passing options but leaves his path to the basket open. A-1 turns and throws the ball off the backboard, runs in catches it and lays it in. I have nothing and the game continues. Players lightly chirping it was an intentional miss and a travel. At the next stop in play, I ask my fellow partner his thoughts and he shrugs. Every once in awhile a rare play happens that I second guess my judgement. Is this a legal play as I ruled?

How about another one...
The night before A-1 driving strong to the basket mistimes when he should leave the floor(leaves to early) and comes up short on his finger role and the ball gets nothing but air. He lands, catches the ball and dribbles the ball. Again I have nothing. I saw a legitimate shot attempt and a rebound.

Thoughts?

APG

First play is legal.

Second play is a judgement play...since you ruled it a try, you got it correct.

APG

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)

Adam

Guess they should have cut off his path to the hoop by boxing out.

Multiple Sports

Not one to put definitions on the site, but if you go to rule 4 and read the definition of a try, you will find that both of your situations are legal plays.......

Agree with APG 100%

Raymond

Brick43 wrote
A-1 is just above the free throw line where he has picked up his dribble. Player B-1 is denying all of his passing options but leaves his path to the basket open. A-1 turns and throws the ball off the backboard, runs in catches it and lays it in. I have nothing and the game continues. Players lightly chirping it was an intentional miss and a travel. At the next stop in play, I ask my fellow partner his thoughts and he shrugs. Every once in awhile a rare play happens that I second guess my judgement. Is this a legal play as I ruled?

How about another one...
The night before A-1 driving strong to the basket mistimes when he should leave the floor(leaves to early) and comes up short on his finger role and the ball gets nothing but air. He lands, catches the ball and dribbles the ball. Again I have nothing. I saw a legitimate shot attempt and a rebound.

Thoughts?

Have you ever read anything that says "intentional misses" are different than "regular" misses?

Knowing the rule book is a good cure for second guessing. Don't let player reaction outweigh rule book study.

bainsey

BadNewsRef wrote
Knowing the rule book is a good cure for second guessing. Don't let player reaction outweigh rule book study.

Right. Even when they say, "TECHNICALLY that's true, but..."

Scrapper1

Brick43 wrote
comes up short on his finger role and the ball gets nothing but air. He lands, catches the ball and dribbles the ball. Again I have nothing. I saw a legitimate shot attempt and a rebound.

Thoughts?

Nice to see you posting! However, you now owe Bktballref $5.

brainbrian

Interesting, so if a kid is dribbling the wrong way and makes a bank shot at his opponents basket it does not count because it is a violation as soon as it hits the backboard?

APG

brainbrian wrote
Interesting, so if a kid is dribbling the wrong way and makes a bank shot at his opponents basket it does not count because it is a violation as soon as it hits the backboard?

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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)

No.

The player would have to touch the ball again. If it goes into his B's basket, the ball is dead, the B is credited with two points, and A has an unrestricted throw-in on the endline.

BillyMac

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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

BillyMac wrote
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

Camron Rust wrote
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

Snaqwells wrote
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

Snaqwells wrote
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.

Brick43

Scrapper1 wrote
Nice to see you posting! However, you now owe Bktballref $5.

The free Forum now has a surcharge tax?

BillyMac

Freddy wrote
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?

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
Buy A Vowel ???

Freddy wrote
Wasted his cash on an unnecessary vowel.

Brick43 wrote
The free Forum now has a surcharge tax?

Only if you use vowels. Wait? Never mind.

nly f y s vwls.