THE END. Backcourt it is. The right thing happened even if it was for the wrong reason (IW).

If it hits the board, I'm judging it a try.

I think I'd have a try here.

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

So if I understand you, this should be a shot based on the fact that it hit the backboard? Do you have a rule or case play that backs your intrp here? Or are you simply saying that your judgement of intent here is more valid than others who say they would judge it a pass?

What he said. Can't believe this made 3 pages.

Finally watched the video. Frankly, I don't think I could tell just by watching it what he was doing, so I'd rule it a shot.

I don't, however, agree that it's a shot simply because it hit the backboard.

Contrived ruling? To say he was shooting is what is contrived. That ball left his hands as a pass. He was trying to hit his player cutting in from the left side. He may have failed at it but that is what he was doing. It just wouldn't make any sense for him to shoot like that at that time. To say he was shooting just because the bad pass just happened to hit the backboard is nothing more than avoiding having to make a decision.

Stop judging intent? We have to do that all the time so why should this be any different? A player puts up an air ball and then catches it. You have to decide if it was a try or not...what was the player's intent. A player is fouled. You must decide shooting or not...what were they intending to do.

If you saw that same play but the thrower was fouled and the ball was knocked away as it was released, would you have put the player on the line for 3 shots? You must decide what he was trying to do...what did he intend to do??? Even if the ball wasn't knocked away, would you award 3 shots? What if it fell 6 inches short and missed the board, does that make it not a shot? If so, does that mean a try has to hit something to be a try?

If somone jumped up and caught that ball before it hit the backboard, would you have called offensive goaltending?

Camron,

I agree that officials should decide if it was a pass or throw. But, I think that they have to consider all factors (time left, distance of the throw, path of the throw) and err on the side of a shot. When this play comes up, I also wonder what would have happened if B1 jumped up above the rim and 1 ft. in front of the rim ( i.e. ball had a chance of going in ) and caught the PASS intended for A2? I can see that explanation - "Coach, when that left his hand, I was sure it was a pass"

What is the worst thing that can happen to you if you ALWAYS declare it a shot if it hits the backboard?

Teen Wolf sighting!

If I had to venture a guess, the overwhelming majority of officials would rule that a try.

Just my simple opinion, but if you rule that to be a pass, you'd just be adding s*** into your game.

Ok, why?

Why are we all ruling it a try?

And if your answer is because it hit the rim, then what rule are you using to back that up?

No, I'm saying that it is a shot unless you are CERTAIN that it isn't because that is what common-sense dictates is the obvious call.

How can it be a pass? Do most passes from the backcourt hit the backboard in your games?

I'm saying that you CANNOT judge intent and because you cannot judge intent, you must determine that this is a shot. You can't say, "Well, I think it was more of a crappy pass than a crappy shot."

Why do you have to have a rule to back up a shot attempt? It's the rule regarding a try for goal. What more is there to it than that?

We don't need a case play or rule for every single permutation of a play that could happen on the court.

True...but if you start telling people who say they will rule it a pass that they are wrong, you should probably have something other than common sense as your backing, don't you think?

So if that kid had hit the rim, would you have signaled for the shot clock operator to reset the shot clock? (assuming that there were more than 30 seconds left)