Are you talking about the dunk? I agree.

If you're talking about the OP, where a player instead catches the ball and lands (rather than dunking), I'm less convinced than when this thread started.

I've come to a philosophy that when a case play contradicts the rule, I'm only willing to apply it to the very specific situation for which it was written. I'm hesitant to apply it to a play that deviates even slightly.

The OP represents a deviation from the case play that seems to me to be significant enough to warrant considering calling the violation.

Nun Of This, Nun Of That ...
 

When I was a kid, the nuns used to call this Limbo.

I'll Do Anything, For You Dear Anything (Oliver) ...
 

Can legally do anything? The case play says that they can legally catch the ball. That's all it says. Period. It doesn't say that they can legally start a new dribble after catching the ball. Again, the original thread name states that this is not a try.

I seem to recall an NFHS ruling from the past stating that the player didn't have any restrictions after the catch. I'll try to find it. My memory isn't what it used to be.

I agree. Don't know where it is but a toss off their own backboard is, for the purposes of what the player can do next, is treated like a try. It is not a try, however.

The Show Me State ...
 

Pretend that I'm from Missouri. As President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "Trust, but verify".

Don't have time to dig it up.

Lookng For Fossils ...
 

Nevadaref? You're the Forum expert at digging things up for the distant past. Give us a few minutes of your time. I need some closure here.

2012-13 Case Book
4.15.4 SITUATION C (c) refers to a try, that hits the player's own backboard.

9.5 SITUATION (a) makes the reference to a team's own backboard being that team's "equipment", and thus it may be used.

Much of the discussion in this thread relies on a combined inerpolation of those two situations.

My once-a-year look at the "Basketball Rules Fundamental" page...
 

NFHS Basketball Rules 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 part of a dribble."

Does this provide some justification in the way of the written rules not contradicting the case play for anyone?

If throwing the ball off a players own backboard is ruled a try, he can retrieve it and start a new dribble.

If throwing the ball off a players own backboard is not ruled a try, he can go retrieve it (similar to ending a dribble and then fumbling) but he cannot start a new dribble.

I guess it also depends what kind of throw against the backboard. If a player is dribbling and two-hand throws it off the backboard, then he has ended his dribble and cannot dribble again if he recovers it. If a player is dribbling and underhand throws it off the backboard, would that be ending his dribble??

There's a lot of unneeded complexity here IMO.

The NFHS has given us a caseplay explaining that Team A can throw the ball off of their own backboard. They want this to be allowed even if the rules don't specifically allow for it.

It seems a lot simpler and within the spirit of the rules to rule any throw by Team A off of their own backboard a try, which I will continue to do.

Otherwise I guess you can ignore the casebook play and go on trying to figure out how to split the baby. It is almost Mardi Gras after all and that tends to happen with King Cake.

Seems more congruent (at least to me) with both rule and caseplay to rule a throw off the backboard in exactly the same way as you would rule a fumble at the end of a dribble. Even though these two things aren't the same, ruling in this way is in line with the rule, and is also in line with the case. If a player throws the ball against the backboard, he can retrieve it. Just like if a player fumbles at the end of a dribble. but he can't start dribbling again.

Doesn't it make the most sense to treat a ball thrown at a team's own goal as an attempt to score?

I see where this would be convenient, but not to me. NCAA and NFHS states that use a shot clock already give clear guidance on that with relation to a non-try that hits the rim.