Originally Posted by ronny mulkey (Post 891196)

I'm not disagreeing but I am trying to understand what category this "throw" falls under. It's not a dribble but we aren't going to let the player dribble again? It's not a shot but we will let the player catch the carom and shoot it? If the carom goes into the backcourt, we won't allow him to retrieve it legally? If it's not a pass, shot, dribble or fumble, what rules are we using to make our assumptions on what this player may do legally after retrieving this "throw"?

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey (Post 891196)

I'm not disagreeing but I am trying to understand what category this "throw" falls under. It's not a dribble but we aren't going to let the player dribble again? It's not a shot but we will let the player catch the carom and shoot it? If the carom goes into the backcourt, we won't allow him to retrieve it legally? If it's not a pass, shot, dribble or fumble, what rules are we using to make our assumptions on what this player may do legally after retrieving this "throw"?

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 891232)

Cameron: "However, if I see it in a game, I'm probably going to judge it to be a try unless it is obvious that it is not. "
It seems that we're over-thinking this. The simplicity of the wording by the NF leads me to feel that they want virtually any ball thrown off a player's own backboard to be considered the same as a definite "try". Thus, all subsequent action(s) by that player are to be judged with similar parameters.

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 891232)

Cameron: "However, if I see it in a game, I'm probably going to judge it to be a try unless it is obvious that it is not. "
It seems that we're over-thinking this. The simplicity of the wording by the NF leads me to feel that they want virtually any ball thrown off a player's own backboard to be considered the same as a definite "try". Thus, all subsequent action(s) by that player are to be judged with similar parameters.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 891259)

So A1 gets stuck behind his own basket, A1 throws the ball at the bottom flat edge of the backboard and catches it, he should now be allowed a new dribble b/c you are judging what he did as a try?

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 891232)

The simplicity of the wording by the NF leads me to feel that they want virtually any ball thrown off a player's own backboard to be considered the same as a definite "try".

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 891276)

I disagree with the idea that the Federation wants us to treat virtually all of these as a try because if they wanted that, they would have said it, in either the rule, or in a case play.

However, unless its some type of written rules exam, I believe that most of us, possibly including me, would treat virtually all of these as a try, whether we're backed by rule, or not.

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 891283)

Even an alley-oop pass that goes in the bucket.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 891238)

You are, of course, right. But it is overthinking that can lead to understanding the true meaning of the related rules whether it is for this situation or others that will require knowing the exact meaning of the rules.
This is just good exercise in rules study.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 891259)

So A1 gets stuck behind his own basket, A1 throws the ball at the bottom flat edge of the backboard and catches it, he should now be allowed a new dribble b/c you are judging what he did as a try?

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 891276)

I disagree with the idea that the Federation wants us to treat virtually all of these as a try because if they wanted that, they would have said it, in either the rule, or in a case play.

However, unless it's some type of written rules exam, I believe that most of us, possibly including me, would treat virtually all of these as a try, whether we're backed by rule, or not.

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 891343)

Case Book 4.15.4 C (c) indicates that the NF considers the second dribble to be legal. (This is the simple wording I was refering to, earlier.)

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 891346)

Only if it is judged to be a try. Otherwise there would not be the need for this portion of the case play: " in an attempt to score (try), "

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 891347)

Agreed. Has any of us ever seen, a) a player attempt to utilize this action? - b) an official call the second dribble a violation? The frequency of such actions must be minute.