Backboard padding
 

Girls JV game:

A1 has a spot throw-in in her backcourt on the endline at the tableside free-throw lane line. She takes a step or two back and fires a rocket that hits the back of the backboard padding before it reaches the court. My partner is administering and is not looking up, but rather at A1 and other players nearby. I'm out slightly beyond the 3-pt. line (Team B was pressing), had the call, pointed and whistled out of bounds. Everybody's fine; no beefs.

At halftime as we're headed to the locker room, a veteran varsity official (I'd say at least 30 years' experience) seated on the far sideline from where the throw-in occurred asks us what we had. He was there as a fan. I told him I judged the ball to have hit the back of the backboard. He responded by saying "but the backboard's in play." I said, "Not the back of it."

Then he said the ball couldn't possibly have hit the back because it wound up on the court instead of back out of bounds. I explained it hit the foam padding and of course it could hit the back of that and still continue forward. My partner agreed and we offered to demonstrate. He urged us to discuss this with our interpreter and almost made it seem/implied our board had come to some understanding/agreement that any ball that hits any part of the backboard yet somehow winds up on the court is deemed to have arrived there legally and is in play.

Naturally, my partner and I disagree, since the foam padding is not going to prevent a ball thrown hard enough from maintaining its forward momentum (either from out to in or from in to out). It really became a physics discussion more than a rules discussion. It was friendly and civil, but both sides were entrenched in their positiions.

Thoughts?

You can't go by this. If it hits the top and you blow it dead nobody much will complain either. You obviously know the rule and the same physics debate has been had here on this forum. My personal opinion is if the ball hits the back, it will go backward. If it goes straight down from the board, it's in play.

Let's put it this way, if it continues forward, then at most, it's merely possible that it hit the back. If it's merely possible, then I am not calling it.

+1

very well put

If it continues forward, I will not call a violation.

Where exactly was the spot throw in? Was it administered properly?

If one really wants to be precise, the rule states "backboard" not the padding on the backboard. 7-1-2a3

Just saying...now please carry-on with your debate.

Cue Eerie Music Here ...
 

The plot thickens.

For something like this, the "experienced Varsity official" should just keep his mouth shut.

Why?

Cause it's a judgment call, plain and simple. It would be the same as me telling a JV guy he missed a travel in the third quarter. I just don't see the point. I only give feedback where it's requested of me.

In the proper way, time, sitch, I see nothing wrong with a veteran trying to give a few pointers to younger officials. I've felt same as others here, that is if ball bounces DOWN in any fashion after hitting board that it did NOT hit the back. If you stay consistant in this it makes it fairly easy to judge, particularily in 2 man and a pressing situation, where you naturally are unable to look up quick enough to be SURE where it hit. Also, like someone else said, if this is a spot throw in, it is even more unlikely to have hit the back. Having said all that, an official making this call if asked, needs to say "it hit the back". Perhaps in the OP, if he had not told the vet it had hit the pad, all would have been forgotten.

From my point of view. If the ball continued forward it didn't hit the back of the backboard.

I don't think I could've possibly been more descriptive as to that.

The girl took a few steps back (as is her right) and chucked it.

Seems like the consensus is the same as the varsity official's. If it manages to reach the court, don't bother. Thanks!

I think you need to be a little careful about "reach the court". It's possible for the ball to hit in the court but be bouncing in a direction back toward the endline (maybe not in your case where she "chucked" the ball). this would be a violation.

But if the ball goes straight down or continues "forward", then it's legal.

For a specific situation like this one that doesn't happen too often...nothing wrong with giving a rule of thumb IMO.

In general, yes, but when it isn't physically possible for the ball to hit the back and continue on into the court in front of the board, it isn't judgement anymore.

Another +1,000 points and another fine Cuban cigar.

MTD, Sr.

Sure it is. It may not be good judgment, but it's judgment.

No, it is a fact. Newton settled this issue about 400 years ago.

How could it be anything but a judgment call? Are you saying this is evidence that the official doesn't know the rule?

No, just that he doesn't know elementary physics. It is a basic scientific fact that if it actually hit the back of the board, it would not continue forward unless it went through the board. It would be deflected backwards. That could be determined without ever looking at where it hit. You only need to know where the ball came from and where it ended up. No judgement needed.

It is sort of like a player deflecting the ball. If the ball distinctly changes direction near an isolated player, you don't have to see the player actually touch it to know they touched it.

Judgment is seeing an act and deciding if it did or did not violate a rule....it isn't not being able to see an absolute event.

Penny Didn't Understand The Hypothesis ...
 

It's true. I saw this in an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

Best episode ever, when Sheldon and Kripke had an athletic contest over office space.

You and I define judgment call differently, then.

I tend to view it in the way a baseball umpire views it -- it's a sport where we have protests which do not include judgment decisions. If the official said, "the ball hit the back of the board," that's judgment all day long. That protest would never be upheld.

Dead horse, beaten.

Taking the baseball analogy...what if the ump called a strike on a ball that was hit as evidenced by the ball coming off the bat and going to 2nd base? Judgement?

It depends:

1. If the umpire ruled that any swing counts as a strike, then it would be a rule issue.

2. If the umpire ruled that the batter swung and missed, then it would be a judgment issue.

I agree that it's a judgement issue. I disagree that it's a judgement issue that shouldn't be brought up by an observing official. Pointing out that the ball would have deflected back towards the thrower had it hit the back of the backboard is a reasonable comment because it's a physical fact that the judgement was wrong.

Didn't believe me, huh, ODog? ;)

Yep, I still lurk here once in a while. :D

Haha, I think I threw this up while I was awaiting your response.

Don't worry, this is always resource #2.:D

I'm a big fan of not bringing *anything* up unless the JV officials ask for feedback / input. Remember, I do not work in a system where we assign games from an association and many times the JV officials just grab their coats and leave. Not my place to jump in unless they ask, far as I'm concerned.