"Shooting" at own basket
 

How many would have called this a violation (0:19-0:46)?

<div><iframe frameborder="0" width="576" height="324" src="http://d.yimg.com/nl/yahoo sports/site/player.html#vid=31116617&browseCarouselUI=hide&sta rtScreenCarouselUI=hide&shareUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fspor ts.yahoo.com%2Fvideo%2Fplayer%2Fnews%2FSports_Minu te%2F31116617"></iframe></div>

Until I started thinking about it, I would not have called this a violation.

4.15.1 SITUATION C:

A1 attempts a pass to A2 during pressing action in A's backcourt. The ball hits B's backboard and deflects directly back to A1 who catches the ball and: (a) passes the ball to A2; or (b) starts a dribble.

RULING: The pass against B's backboard was the start of a dribble which ended when A1 caught the ball. In (a), the pass is legal action. In (b), it is a violation for a second dribble. (4-4-5; 9-5)

Therefore, the second time the player shoots the ball and then catches it, we have an illegal dribble violation

Food for thought...

-Josh

All of us, I hope.

And, it should be a violation to embed something that starts with an ad. ;)

Weird ...
 

Just think of this player as "dribbling" off the court floor when he "dribbles" off the backboard. Also remember that this is not a try. Do I have this right?

does hitting the rim change anything :)?

OOB violation? :p

You don't know? Or is this your serendipitous way of engaging new officials?

This Time, No ...
 

I think that I know, just want to be sure. And no, this is not a rhetorical question for the benefit of newbies.

Made this call this year in a ms girls game.

A1 gets the ball in her bc and dribbled towards B's basket. Stops. Shoots. Catches rebound. I made the call from "L" at half court.

I hope that FIBA rules are different on this play (which I don't think they are) cause that's a call that one of the officials has to make.

This silly question got me thinking.

At first, I was thinking, if A-1 hits B's rim, and caught the "rebound," that's not a dribble. Further inspection of 4-15-1 tells me otherwise.

So, if A-2 purposely throws the ball against A's backboard, runs and catches it, then starts a dribble, that's legal, per 4-15-1. ("It is not part of a dribble when the ball touches the player's own backboard.") However, if A-2 purposely throws the ball against A's rim (NOT the backboard), catches it (yes, I know, very difficult), and starts a dribble, wouldn't that be illegal by rule? Or, is there a case that says it's all part of a try for goal?

"Shooting" at own basket????

Or are you losing your mind? :confused:

Why is it illegal to throw the ball and hit your own rim?

A player throws the ball at his basket and it hits the rim. It's a try. Move on and don't consider anything else.

I think 4.15.4 SITUATION C applies better in this case, it's not really a "pass." :)

After dribbling and coming to a stop, A1 throws the ball: (a) against the opponent’s backboard and catches the rebound;
RULING: A1 has violated in (a). Throwing the ball against the opponent’s backboard constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is first to touch the ball after it strikes the board.

Edit: I also like the fact the shot clock operator had enough sense not to reset it here every shot.

As has been noted, subtly, already, the thread title is misleading.

A's basket is the one in which they attempt to score.

This isn't soccre.

One thing FIBA does better than their North American counterparts is confusing people with their definition of "own" basket. That has to be the dumbest ****ing rule NFHS has.


16.2.2 If a player accidentally scores a field goal in his team’s own basket, the goal
counts two (2) points and shall be recorded as having been scored by the captain of
the opposing team on the playing court.
16.2.3 If a player deliberately scores a field goal in his team’s own basket, it is a violation
and the goal does not count.

I don't see how distinguishing it either way is any better then the other. It also sounds like FIBA took a page out of the NBA rule book in that it's also a violation to attempt a field goal at the wrong basket.

Darn it, I knew I shouldn't post when I'm in a hurry. You are all correct, they are "shooting" at the opponent's basket. Thanks for keeping me honest!

-Josh

Assuming you mean "hitting only the rim", then yes.

It changes from a dribbling violation to a travelling violation.

Because NFHS is the only sport in the world where you don't defend your own goal.

I'm sure you meant level...and under NCAA and NBA rules, one scores at their basket. In the basketball world, it would seem as though FIBA is "backwards"...not that it even matters.

no one believes me.....
 

2 scrimmages, a dozen officials (including an NCAA official).... none would call any violation

And when you presumably pulled out your case book and showed them the error of their ways, what did they say? ;)

oops...
 

When I ran back to locker room.... discovered that my case book was right where I had been reading it..... on my desk at home.....:mad:

e-mailed the whole group this thread last night when I got home.....

I don't have a violation here because the ball hit the ring on every shot attempt (as far as I can judge from the video). Hence it is not a double dribble violation (at least under FIBA rules, which I guess apply to this video).

1. I believe in fiba, it's a violation to shoot at the wrong basket in the first place.

Second, if it only hits the rim, did he really not move his pivot foot throughout all those attempts? Did all that take less than ten seconds?

1. It's not a violation to shoot at the wrong basket in FIBA, it's only a violation to deliberately score at the wrong basket.

2. It doesn't matter if it ONLY hits the rim or also the backboard, as long as it hits the ring the player is allowed to dribble again.

3. I was only referring to double dribble violations as I thought that was what the discussion was about. He did indeed move his pivot foot on the last attempt. Also I have an eight second violation (as in eight seconds to get the ball in the frontcourt, I assume that's what you ment with ten seconds, which I think is the rule in highschool/college basketball?), but not until the other player rebounds the ball and dribbles it towards the frontcourt.

Re #2, are you saying if a player dribbled to the wrong basket, picked up his dribble, and threw it at the ring, and caught it, he can dribble again?

I can't get the video to play, so I'm going off of ESPN memory.

Under FIBA rules would this be deemed not a shot attempt?

15.1.1 A shot for a field goal or a free throw is when the ball is held in a player’s hand(s) and is then thrown into the air towards the opponents' basket.

24.1.2 A dribble starts when a player, having gained control of a live ball on the playing court, throws, taps, rolls, dribbles it on the floor or deliberately throws it against the backboard and touches it again before it touches another player.

A dribble ends when the player touches the ball with both hands simultaneously or permits the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.

24.1.4 The following are not dribbles:
• Successive shots for a field goal.

From reading that, I would come to the conclusion that it would be an illegal dribble. What am I missing? :confused:

New Obsevation of This Play
 

I put this clip out to various members of our association as an email discussion item, challenging them to determine what the official did wrong on this play.
#1 - Most popular response: OFFICIAL DID NOT HAVE A BACKCOURT TEN SECOND COUNT.
#2 - Second most popular response: DRIBBLING VIOLATION (ala Casebook 4.15...) BY REBOUNDER FOR REPEATED CONTACT WITH OPPONENTS' BACKBOARD.
#3 - Then this response trumped them all. (And I don't think it was mentioned in this thread, was it?): VIOLATION BY NON-LANE PLAYER WHO CROSSED THE THREE-POINT ARC BEFORE THE FREE THROW MADE CONTACT WITH THE BASKET OR BACKBOARD, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED A DELAYED VIOLATION, RESULTING IN A SUBSTITUTE FREE THROW.

Turns out that original violater was the hapless rebounder.

#3 violation, if properly called, would have made officiating errors #2 and #1 irrelevant.

How could I have missed that??????????

Anyone else think it is a violation that they make you watch the advertisement at the start of the video and then tell you the video is no longer avaliable? Seems like a flagrant tech to me.

See post #2.

According to the FIBA Interpretations 2012, Art. 24, Statement 1, it is considered a dribble when "a player deliberately throws the ball against a backboard (not attempting a legitimate shot for a field goal)".

Based on 15.1.1 you could indeed very well argue that the attempts in the video are not legitimate shots because they are directed at his own basket. However, since this player obviously believes the basket to be its' opponents basket and his intent is to score (after all, if he made the basket it would still count as under FIBA Interpretations Art. 9, Statement 2, Example 2) and not to gain an unfair advantage by passing the ball to himself, I would call it a legimitate attempt to score and therefor not a violation.

I seen that but now it has an advertisement and then no video.

Mad Men ...
 

Definitely flagrant. I wanted to take another look at the free throw violation that I missed the first time. Too late. The video has now disappeared into cyberspace.

#1 Yes, actually an eight second backcourt count since it's FIBA basketball.

#2 No, not in my opinion, see my previous post(s).

#3 Absolutely right, very well spotted.

PS: calm down on the caps ;)

I'd be interested to see if that's what others would call under FIBA rules. It seems pretty clear to me that a shot attempt can only be attempted at the correct basket. Everything under article 15 (player in the act of shooting) involves the player shooting at the correct basket. It would seem backwards to me (and I'm not saying you're wrong), to not apply it in this case.

Here it is:

Belgian Basketball Player Can't Make a Lay Up On His Own Goal - YouTube

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, nor that I'm right (allthough in my initial post I was convinced I was right ;) ). However, because he doesn't place himself at an unfair advantage (quite the opposite I'd say), I would not call it.

The only way to know is to compare the histories and rationales within each code.

OOPS . . . SORRY 'BOUT THAT

:o

Re your second point, I disagree. After watching the video now, I'm convinced every attempt hits the backboard. So, I have an illegal dribble after he catches his second "rebound."

Before that, however, I have a traveling violation as soon as he catches the first rebound. He gets the original rebound airborne, lands, jumps again, and "shoots." Once he catches that ball again (whether or not it hits the backboard), it's a travel.

Of course, before that was the delayed FT violation.

So what's the ruling on this play, NFHS rules?
 

T-Mac Alley Oop to himself All Star 2004 - YouTube, Sorry I don't know how to imbed. And hit the skip ad button. :D

Added by APG:

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fx0mrAnN15E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Count the basket. Consider the first release to be a try, despite any obvious evidence to the contrary.

The ruling in your play is you might just end up on your local new's top 10 plays...but hopefully not as that one official that incorrectly waved a play off. ;)

specifically allowed in both NFHS and NCAA rules / cases.

You don't need to consider his first release to be a try. It's legal to throw the ball off your own backboard and retrieve it.

It's also legal if you consider it a try.

I'm missing the point of that. Everyone already knows you can rebound your own shot.

You told a poster in order for the play to be legal you need to consider McGrady's throw off the backboard "a try". Why does he need to consider it a try when it's perfectly legal to throw the ball off your own backboard and retrieve it? Why add judgment to a play that doesn't need judgment?

I know there is another option. You might be good enough to refresh my memory of the details. (a player may use his own equipment, etc.)

But what's the problem with calling it a try? Player threw the ball which hit the board and was subsequently rebounded by him or some other player. For all intents and purposes, it was a try.

For me I prefer to the conversation with the opposing coach to be "a player is allowed to throw the ball at his own backboard and retrieve it" rather than saying "that throw off the backboard is considered a try".

When given the choice of "cut and dry" vs. "judgment and condsideration", I prefer the former.

That's what we were told at a meeting last year. If the player in possession has the capability to dribble and bounces the ball off the opposing backboard, he has to (in the words of our interpreter) "continue the dribble off the backboard" in order be able to move with the ball. If he catches it, then he cannot dribble anymore. And, if I remember correctly, if the possessor does not have the capability to dribble, he cannot be the next to possess the ball if he bounces the ball off the opposing basket (i.e. another player must gain possession).

And it cannot be a legal try. If a A1 is fouled while throwing the ball off the opposing backboard or accidentally tries for a basket, it does not warrant free-throws. It would just be a throw-in at the spot closest to the spot of the foul.

That just led me to a question though... what if the ball goes into the wrong basket when a player, in shooting motion, is fouled? I think this is dead ball and the basket doesn't count, but may need someone to confirm that.

Correct. The foul causes the ball to become dead, so if it subsequently enters the opponent's basket, it doesn't count.

Correct. The ball is dead on the foul.

But, your wording, while I knew what you meant with your question, could be twisted such that it was asking something entirely different. So, let's do so just a bit to have some fun...

What if, with 2 seconds left on the clock, A1 attempts to heave a 75 foot shot from the backcourt FT lane but in doing so gets fouled such that the ball is deflected directly into the wrong basket.

I know this will not happen, but what if it did....what would you rule?

I want to say no because the ball becomes dead on a shot after a foul when it is obvious that the try is going to be unsuccessful. The player is shooting towards his own goal and a deflection /foul causing it to go into the wrong basket would certainly mean the try had ended prior to it going into the wrong basket.
But, If your scenario went like this: try , deflection of ball back into basket, foul, horn. I just opened another can of worms. Going to count the points for the made "wrong" basket, then 3 fts to the original player with lanes cleared. Isn't this fun? :D

How could it be a shooting foul if the foul occurs after the ball is deflected into the wrong basket? And why did you clear the lane?

Not looking at the rulebook, I'm going to go with common sense and say that the reason a try can still happen while a player is in shooting motion and is fouled for is for advantage reasons. With this idea in mind, I would say the shot in the wrong basket is not an advantage to the offended team and will not count, and you continue with FTs for the offended player.

What do you think, Camron?

If that ever happens to me, I'm running out of the gym and hanging up my whistle for good.

But, to keep this going, I'm going to say this, however I'm only guessing and have no idea what would be right or wrong... wrong basket is good off the deflection, foul is no longer a shooting foul because the ball has entered the opposing basket legally, making that play dead. If time was still on the clock at the point the foul occurred according to one of the officials, put time back on the clock and take the ball OOB closest to the spot of the foul.

1. The player attempted to shoot towards his own basket, where the ball ended up is immaterial in deciding whether it is a shooting foul.

2. If a player is fouled while shooting towards his opponent's basket, that is not a shooting foul, and free throws are only granted if the bonus is in effect.

It is a shooting foul because he was heaving toward his own basket. If the deflection goes into the opposing teams basket and then he gets fouled on the way down, he was still in the act of shooting. Are you suggesting that because the ball entered the basket before the foul that the act of shooting has already ended or that because the ball is dead, any foul unless intentional or flagrant should be considered incidental?

The lane is cleared because time expired as the foul was committed. End of period so lanes cleared.

All of this is extremely hypothetical and pretty much impossible but what if...

I like this explanation, but it now makes me think about fouls during the time between the ball going through the basket and it being picked up by inbounding team. If the ball is dead during this time period, isn't it true that there can not be a foul during this time period unless intentional or flagrant?

That explanation is incorrect by rule.

Your further thoughts are correct, that would be dead ball contact and should be treated accordingly.

and in two other cases ... (trying to "teach you to fish")

I figured out why the explanation is incorrect. 4-19-1 note.

I was talking about the explanation of why it wouldn't be a shooting foul.

It is still a shooting foul, right? If not I am not sure what you are getting at.

Yes, it is.

I agree with your ruling.

At least someone does. :D