I think you're right. My point there is it wouldn't be hard to convince anyone that he wasn't trying to pass the ball in the general, non-rule sense.

My question here really was "Does 'to another player' encompass merely throwing the ball at a player or does it require the other player to have a chance to play the ball?" The clear consensus is that it just has to be in the general direction of a player without regard to his ability to play the ball.

It's a pass. Intent doesn't matter. If you think it is a violation, than you would call a violation when the inbounder throws the ball off of an opponents back and steps in and gets the ball.

That's twice that's come up. I don't see the connection. The thrower-in cannot travel and has no pivot foot or ability to dribble. One could be legal and the other illegal.

True on the inbounder. So that leaves intent, and that doesn't matter. This is a pass, I just don't see what the question is.

A1 throws the ball towards A2 who has his back turned and is not expecting the ball.

The ball hits A2 dead in the small of the back and falls to the floor. A2 turns and picks the ball up off the floor.

How did the ball get from A1 to A2?

Not by a fumble....

Not by an interrupted dribble....

Not by a dribble....


It's a pass ;)

< raises both hands in surrende r>
Ok, ok. I concede. I'll just go back to contemplating what the definition of is is. :)

For the NCAA shot clock... yes.