Pass Off Backboard
 

I saw LebRon James passed the ball to himself off the backboard after he had ebded his dribble. Is this legal in NFHS?

It is legal at all levels. It is only a dribble if you throw the ball off your opponent's basket.

Peace

Legal play at all levels of play

Edit: Except apparently for FIBA

You must never have seen Moses Malone play.

lmao!

Not ALL levels. FIBA would be illegal.

Is that only because FIBA makes the opposite distinction between an opponent's basket and one's own basket?

Ha!!

Self Pass And Dunk ???
 

NFHS. We've discussed this many times before here on the Forum. Many believe that anything thrown off of one's own backboard should, or must, be treated as a shot, so all bets are off in regard to illegal dribble, travel, team control, etc. I'm not sure that there is a written citation that confirms this, but this is what most follow in regard to such a play.

I believe it is written somewhere that you can throw the ball off your own backboard without violating. Don't believe it has anything to do with being considered a try.

Just Making Sure
 

We are talking about the front of the backboard, right?

:D

That's right. Throwing the ball off your own backboard is treated as a dribble. If a player has picked up (ended) his dribble and then throws the ball off the backboard, that would constitute an illegal dribble.

A player who receives the ball, throws the ball against his own backboard, and continues to dribble the ball after it returns to the floor has not violated.

I've never seen either one. :)

Are you using the FIBA definitions here?

I believed you have misread my post and the rule.

I don't think so. FIBA releases interpretations yearly and we were told to treat a pass off the backboard (any backboard I believe) as a dribble.

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

NFHS: A team tries to score by shooting the ball into their own basket.

Am I right, or do I have this half-ass-backward?

Equipment ???
 

You may be right? Something about being allowed to use one's own "equipment"? I never did like that citation, mainly because I never really understood the rationale behind it, and how the interpretation related to the rules, as written.

9.5 Situation ...
 

9.5 SITUATION: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the
ball against: (a) his/her own backboard; (b) the opponent’s backboard; or (c) an
official and catches the ball after each. RULING: Legal in (a); a team’s own backboard
is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used. In (b) and
(c), A1 has violated; throwing the ball against an opponent’s backboard or an official
constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is first to touch the ball after it
strikes the official or the board. (4-4-5; 4-15-1, 2; Fundamental 19)

4-4-5: A ball which touches the front faces or edges of the backboard is
treated the same as touching the floor inbounds.

4-15-1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats
(intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once
or several times. It is not a part of a dribble when the ball touches a player’s own
backboard.

Fundamental 19: A ball which touches the front face or edges of the backboard is treated the same
as touching the floor inbounds, except that when the ball touches the thrower’s
backboard, it does not constitute a part of a dribble.

Food for thought: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he throws the
ball against his own backboard ... and catches the ball ... RULING: Legal ... a team’s own backboard
is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used.

My question: Can he legally start a new dribble?

Wrong.

Everything you say is true if you throw it off the OPPONENT'S backboard.

You've got ends of the floor confused.

Forgive me but I do not think of FIBA on any level in the rules department.

Peace

People also get these distinctions mixed up too, because in a sport like football you score points at the opponents end zone and defend your end zone. I see people get these mixed up in other sports where that classification is not the same as it relates to other sports where a "goal" is usually scored. It think soccer uses the same definitions as you see in football.

Peace

Another question: If the carom goes into A1's backcourt and A1 is the first to touch the ball, has A1 committed a backcourt violation?

I Like The Way You Think ...
 

Good one.

Tuff Enuff (Fabulous Thunderbirds) ???
 

Anybody as tough as Jurassic Referee to tackle this one?

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.

Thanks ...
 

Agree.

I Need A Little More Convincing ...
 

So let me see if I have this straight. The player ends his dribble. Now he throws it off his own backboard, it's a throw, not a try. The ball bounces off his own backboard, and, by definition, this act does not constitute a part of a dribble. The player now catches the ball as it bounces off his own backboard. All legal so far.

Now you're going to allow him to start a new dribble? I need more convincing, and remember, this was a throw, not a try.

NFHS 9-5: A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
ART. 1 . A try for field goal.
ART. 2 . A touch by an opponent.
ART. 3 . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player.

Did the player lose control because of a try? No.
Did the player lose control because of a touch by an opponent? No.
Did the player lose control because of a pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player? No.

So why are you allowing the player to dribble a second time?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Keep It Simple Stupid ...
 

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.

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.

Pepperidge Farm Remembers ...
 

Anybody remember the time when, if the "pass" came from behind the three point arc, and accidentally went in, that it only counted as two points? It's true. It's true.

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 . . .

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 . . .

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.)

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), "

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.

Because of this thread it will probably happen in my next game.

So you would call a double dribble?

Not me. If it hits any part of the backboard other than the back, I don't care what he does with it if he catches it.

I wouldn't allow him to dribble again after catching it.

I'm not sure that's in line with what they want us to call. This interp is giving a player a get-out-of-jail free card that's not intended.

Player dribbles, stops to shoot but gets stuck and doesn't shoot.. then hits the bottom of the basket on purpose with the ball and starts dribbling again? Are you really saying you'd have no violation for that?

This sounds like a last ditch shot attempt to me. Players would sooner throw the ball of an opponent and start to dribble again than think they could just do that off the bottom of the backboard.