Pass Off Backboard

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here are my answers which are based upon the definitions of player and team control.
1. As the player relinquished player control by throwing the ball off the backboard in his frontcourt, if he is able to retrieve the ball he has all rights as if he just caught a pass from a teammate.

2. Since only player and not team control ended, it would be a backcourt violation. The thrown ball does not automatically equate to a try for goal.

Not sure I agree with your #1.

4-4-5 tells us that a ball hitting the backboard is treated the same as a ball hitting the playing court. 4-15 tells us that throwing the ball off the backboard is not part of the dribble, but the dribble ends when the player catches the ball. So if he bats the ball up off the backboard and catches it, his dribble ends at the catch. He can't dribble again.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Not sure I agree with your #1.

4-4-5 tells us that a ball hitting the backboard is treated the same as a ball hitting the playing court. 4-15 tells us that throwing the ball off the backboard is not part of the dribble, but the dribble ends when the player catches the ball. So if he bats the ball up off the backboard and catches it, his dribble ends at the catch. He can't dribble again.

I think I agree with you. The player may have lost player control but not in a way that grants them the right to dribble again.

Even if the player catches the ball after having dribble, then throws it off the board, and then catches it again, the player is legal as that action is not considered a dribble. But it would be a violation to dribble again.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think I agree with you. The player may have lost player control but not in a way that grants them the right to dribble again.

Even if the player catches the ball after having dribble, then throws it off the board, and then catches it again, the player is legal as that action is not considered a dribble. But it would be a violation to dribble again.

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"?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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"?

You could consider it a special exception in the rules, only applicable to a specific situation (being allowed to catch the ball) but not stretched beyond. IOW, the player can catch the ball and dunk, as it's legal to throw the ball off of the backboard and retrieve it. He cannot, however, he doesn't get a new dribble or a fresh start in the BC.

Just thinking "out loud."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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"?

Seems like more like a fumble.

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.

[Rob1968]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

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.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I agree that your comment regarding the value of this discussion. The difficulty is in the application. Just last night, I had the wondeful, "But it was touched by the defense!" comment from a coach, when all the neccessary elements for my backcourt call were present . . .

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

He did use the qualifier "virtually". I think your sitch would be the exception to everything else he said.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

Because of this discussion, I'd consider not allowing a second dribble. But, it might be tempered by how much he!! I'd be willing to take, from the kid's coach, fans, my partner(s), at that moment . . .

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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".

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

I see it's time for our annual, "Pass" of one's own backboard thread.

I am of the camp that anything, no matter how ugly it may seem, that is put towards one's basket is an attempt to score points. Even an alley-oop pass that goes in the bucket.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.)