Backboard padding

[ODog]

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by ODog

Everybody's fine; no beefs.

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.

[Adam]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

[Camron Rust]

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

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by ODog

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?

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If one really wants to be precise, the rule states "backboard" not the padding on the backboard.

The plot thickens.

[Rich]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

Why?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[letemplay]

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.

[OKREF]

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

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

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

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!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ODog

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.