Team control, throw-in, IW

[zm1283]

On this note, I was working a scrimmage last Friday night. I was the Lead and administering the throw-in in the frontcourt on the endline. The thrower went to throw the ball to a teammate and it hit the bottom (From what I could tell) of the backboard and came down in bounds on the court, where one of the players on the court grabbed it. I wasn't going call a violation because it looked like it came straight down, leading me to believe that it hit the bottom of the backboard and not the back. It also landed in bounds. My partner comes in after a brief delay and says that it was a violation. At the next break I asked him about it and he said that when it hit, it angled back toward the endline so it must have hit the back of the backboard. I told him that it landed in bounds and from my angle it went straight down so I would have left it alone. We agreed to disagree and went on.

I remember people talking about this on here before. If it doesn't come straight down after hitting the backboard do you guys always assume it hit the back?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I remember people talking about this on here before. If it doesn't come straight down after hitting the backboard do you guys always assume it hit the back?

If it goes back, it hit the back.

Whether it went back is, of course, judgment.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If it goes back, it hit the back.

Whether it went back is, of course, judgment.

Is the corner of the padding on the bottom of the backboard considered the back?

Originally Posted by zm1283

Is the corner of the padding on the bottom of the backboard considered the back?

The rule of thumb is to see where the ball goes. If the ball rebounds back out of bounds then the ball probably hit the back. If the ball goes down as in the OP the ball probably hit the bottom. If the ball hits the back it should be obvious to everyone -- otherwise just play on.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The rule of thumb is to see where the ball goes. If the ball rebounds back out of bounds then the ball probably hit the back. If the ball goes down as in the OP the ball probably hit the bottom. If the ball hits the back it should be obvious to everyone -- otherwise just play on.

I personally don't think it needs to rebound "back out of bounds". If it hits the court or is touched closer than 4' from the end line (as a general statement -- I'm not trying to get into measuring the diameter of the ball and which part of it hits where), then it hit the back.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I personally don't think it needs to rebound "back out of bounds". If it hits the court or is touched closer than 4' from the end line (as a general statement -- I'm not trying to get into measuring the diameter of the ball and which part of it hits where), then it hit the back.

Agree. If it does not continue on past the board, then it hit at least some part of the back.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

On this note, I was working a scrimmage last Friday night. I was the Lead and administering the throw-in in the frontcourt on the endline. The thrower went to throw the ball to a teammate and it hit the bottom (From what I could tell) of the backboard and came down in bounds on the court, where one of the players on the court grabbed it. I wasn't going call a violation because it looked like it came straight down, leading me to believe that it hit the bottom of the backboard and not the back. It also landed in bounds. My partner comes in after a brief delay and says that it was a violation. At the next break I asked him about it and he said that when it hit, it angled back toward the endline so it must have hit the back of the backboard. I told him that it landed in bounds and from my angle it went straight down so I would have left it alone. We agreed to disagree and went on.

I remember people talking about this on here before. If it doesn't come straight down after hitting the backboard do you guys always assume it hit the back?

No way I'm coming in to get this from T, regardless of what I saw. (unless it went straight back)

[rbruno]

I believe we still have a violation because by hitting even the bottom of the backboard , which is inbounds...it did not go 'directly" onto the court.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by rbruno

I believe we still have a violation because by hitting even the bottom of the backboard , which is inbounds...it did not go 'directly" onto the court.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by rbruno

I believe we still have a violation because by hitting even the bottom of the backboard , which is inbounds...it did not go 'directly" onto the court.

BNR's scenario includes the ball having been thrown "directly onto the court" (it mentions that the ball was deflected by B), thus, no violation.
It seems to me, that there are two choices . . . POI may be considered the throw-in by A, and thus we re-do the throw-in,
or, we treat the scenario as the throw-in having been completed, (when the ball was touched by B) but with no team control having been established on the court, we may go to an AP throw-in.
Presently, I favor the latter. But I'm willing to consider other opinions.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

BNR's scenario includes the ball having been thrown "directly onto the court" (it mentions that the ball was deflected by B), thus, no violation.
It seems to me, that there are two choices . . . POI may be considered the throw-in by A, and thus we re-do the throw-in,
or, we treat the scenario as the throw-in having been completed, (when the ball was touched by B) but with no team control having been established on the court, we may go to an AP throw-in.
Presently, I favor the latter. But I'm willing to consider other opinions.

If it hits the bottom of the backboard and we have an IW, it goes back to the AP throw in. The throw in has not been completed, and this isn't a violation. The arrow will change when the throw in has ended.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If it hits the bottom of the backboard and we have an IW, it goes back to the AP throw in. The throw in has not been completed, and this isn't a violation. The arrow will change when the throw in has ended.

I agree, if the ball went directly from thrower-in A to the bottom of the backboard, but the scenario posed by BNR has the ball being deflected by B, and then hitting the bottom of the backboard. I understand that the throw-in ended when the ball was "deflected by B."

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I agree, if the ball went directly from thrower-in A to the bottom of the backboard, but the scenario posed by BNR has the ball being deflected by B, and then hitting the bottom of the backboard. I understand that the throw-in ended when the ball was "deflected by B."

I didn't catch his scenario. If the throw in ended, which it does when it is legally touched by B, the arrow changes then, and there is an IW and no team control exists then you go to the AP, which would be team B ball.

[APG]

Originally Posted by rbruno

i believe we still have a violation because by hitting even the bottom of the backboard , which is inbounds...it did not go 'directly" onto the court.

7.1.2 Situation A

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by rbruno

I believe we still have a violation because by hitting even the bottom of the backboard , which is inbounds...it did not go 'directly" onto the court.

"A ball which touches the front faces or edges of the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds."