Pass or illegal dribble

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Whether the player towards whom the ball is thrown is intended to be able to play it or not is not a factor. Do you think that a thrower tossing the ball off an opponent's back during a throw-in and then stepping inbounds and grabbing the ball is illegal?

That's a completely different situation as the thrower-in does not have a potential requirement to keep his pivot foot on the floor if he doesn't perform a pass.

In this case the ball was passed towards a teammate and it even struck him in flight. There can't even be confusion due to it being a bounce pass.

Originally Posted by APG

Because he threw the ball to another player. You read too much into intent or whatever his teammate was suppose to get the ball.

Eh, he threw the ball at his teammate. I'll admit to parsing between at and to, but it seems an important distinction to me.

Stepping outside of the rules for a second, he in no way meant to pass the ball to his teammate, he was simply trying not to travel yet maintain possession. The spirit of what he did is, imho, against the spirit of the game.

I don't think I'd call it or expect it to be called that way (unless it becomes a really popular tactic) but I do think it's a technical (or if you prefer, ticky-tack) violation.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't think I'd call it or expect it to be called that way (unless it becomes a really popular tactic) but I do think it's a technical (or if you prefer, ticky-tack) violation.

No technical violation...the player didn't push the ball to the floor once or several times. He threw the ball at a teammate. Sure he did it to avoid a traveling violation, but that doesn't matter. When judging between a dribble (which would make this traveling, not an illegal dribble) and a pass, this better fits the definition of a pass. And it will be the expected call.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by APG

No technical violation...the player didn't push the ball to the floor once or several times. He threw the ball at a teammate. Sure he did it to avoid a traveling violation, but that doesn't matter. When judging between a dribble (which would make this traveling, not an illegal dribble) and a pass, this better fits the definition of a pass. And it will be the expected call.

He pushed the ball and it hit the floor. That checks all the boxes for a dribble. I still maintain that he didn't throw the ball to a teammate but at one, so that's a missing box for a pass. So it's not a pass but is a dribble. Either way, as you say, not the expected call.

However, somehow I never realized starting the dribble with the pivot foot off the floor is traveling and not an illegal dribble. So that's that learned.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

He pushed the ball and it hit the floor. That checks all the boxes for a dribble. I still maintain that he didn't throw the ball to a teammate but at one, so that's a missing box for a pass. So it's not a pass but is a dribble. Either way, as you say, not the expected call.

However, somehow I never realized starting the dribble with the pivot foot off the floor is traveling and not an illegal dribble. So that's that learned.

Well the violation would be for picking up the pivot foot before releasing the ball to start a dribble.

As to your argument with regards to throwing to or at, that's a pass to EVERYONE in the game of basketball. There's no way in hell you're going to be able to convince the majority of players, coaches, officials, that a thrown ball, that HITS HIS TEAMMATE, isn't a pass. And if it's me vs. the world in an argument...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

...
However, somehow I never realized starting the dribble with the pivot foot off the floor is traveling and not an illegal dribble. So that's that learned.

If you are just now learning this basic rule then that might explain why you are arguing about what Kevin Love did.

Perfectly legal play that no competent official would ever consider blowing his/her whistle on.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by APG

Well the violation would be for picking up the pivot foot before releasing the ball to start a dribble.

As to your argument with regards to throwing to or at, that's a pass to EVERYONE in the game of basketball. There's no way in hell you're going to be able to convince the majority of players, coaches, officials, that a thrown ball, that HITS HIS TEAMMATE, isn't a pass. And if it's me vs. the world....

Then the world has a lot to learn?

I'll bet you a dollar that if you got Kevin Love alone over a beer and asked him if he was trying to pass the ball he'd say of course not.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If you are just now learning this basic rule then that might explain why you are arguing about what Kevin Love did.

Perfectly legal play that no competent official would ever consider blowing his/her whistle on.

Hey! I know it's wrong, I just had it categorized under illegal dribble instead of travelling.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Then the world has a lot to learn?

I'll bet you a dollar that if you got Kevin Love alone over a beer and asked him if he was trying to pass the ball he'd say of course not.
...p

What if Kevin Love's release was instead towards his own basket, hit the rim, and then came directly back to him? Would it matter what his intent was?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What if Kevin Love's release was instead towards his own basket, hit the rim, and then came directly back to him? Would it matter what his intent was?

No and I agree that it doesn't matter here either.

[brainbrian]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What if Kevin Love's release was instead towards his own basket, hit the rim, and then came directly back to him? Would it matter what his intent was?

For the NCAA shot clock... yes.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Then the world has a lot to learn?

I'll bet you a dollar that if you got Kevin Love alone over a beer and asked him if he was trying to pass the ball he'd say of course not.

That's because he (and you, I think) would be using some definition for "pass" that isn't the rule book definition.

Instead, ask him if he was atempting a legal play to avoid a travel violation.

(He might say, "I didn't know if it would be legal, but I kew that if I didn't do something it would be illegal, so what did I have to lose".)

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's because he (and you, I think) would be using some definition for "pass" that isn't the rule book definition.

Instead, ask him if he was atempting a legal play to avoid a travel violation.

(He might say, "I didn't know if it would be legal, but I kew that if I didn't do something it would be illegal, so what did I have to lose".)

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.

[Adam]

Talk about overthinking. Don't get caught up with the difference between at and too. This is not a legal document.

The ball went to another player, intent beyond that is irrelevant.

[OKREF]

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.