Use of own backboard (not a try)

Originally Posted by APG

that throw against the backboard is a try

Per NFHS 4-41-2, "A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal."

That is not a try, that is an intentional self pass. Thus, travelling.

[APG]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Per NFHS 4-41-2, "A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal."

That is not a try, that is an intentional self pass. Thus, travelling.

There's no such thing as a self pass under NFHS/NCAA rules.

Sure you could try and show you've read the rule book and not judge that a try...and you'll be in the small minority.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by APG

I saw the play. The play is still legal...that throw against the backboard is a try.

*added*
You should look at the basketball rules fundamentals:

S. A ball that 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 the dribble.

The play in question would only be a violation if he was throwing the ball off his opponent's backboard.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Per NFHS 4-41-2, "A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal."

That is not a try, that is an intentional self pass. Thus, travelling.

Well now I'm more confused.

So it's not a dribble.

And in my judgement, it's not a try.

What the hell is it? Can the player dribble again?

I'm fine with the interpretation that it's a legal play, I'm just trying to fully understand why.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Well now I'm more confused.

So it's not a dribble.

And in my judgement, it's not a try.

What the hell is it? Can the player dribble again?

I'm fine with the interpretation that it's a legal play, I'm just trying to fully understand why.

Because they don't want to void that great dunk where the athletic stud uses the backboard to look even more awesome.

Now, Adams seems to be splitting hairs and saying the violation should be called if the player lands after catching it rather than going straight to the dunk.

Frankly, the same rules apply, and if one is a violation, there's no rule justification for differentiating between the plays.

[Toren]

Well it's clearly not a shot, I think we would all agree with that.

And I'm sure if he did this same thing and the ball had contacted the rim, we would NOT reset the shot clock.

And it's not a pass, since a pass by rule is to another player.

So the part of the rule that I think is important is "In order for a pass to be completed, the ball shall touch another player." (4-24 NCAA)

To me this is the same as Player A1 throwing a ball toward Player A2. Realizing that B2 is about to steal it he hesitates and lofts it. A1 then proceeds to catch the ball himself after taking a number of steps. The ball never touches the ground.

So I'm just visualizing the play without the ball striking the backboard.

What would your ruling be in my situation? And if you rule it differently then the play posted, why?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

Well it's clearly not a shot, I think we would all agree with that.

And I'm sure if he did this same thing and the ball had contacted the rim, we would NOT reset the shot clock.

And it's not a pass, since a pass by rule is to another player.

So the part of the rule that I think is important is "In order for a pass to be completed, the ball shall touch another player." (4-24 NCAA)

To me this is the same as Player A1 throwing a ball toward Player A2. Realizing that B2 is about to steal it he hesitates and lofts it. A1 then proceeds to catch the ball himself after taking a number of steps. The ball never touches the ground.

So I'm just visualizing the play without the ball striking the backboard.

What would your ruling be in my situation? And if you rule it differently then the play posted, why?

You're right, but all levels have made it clear they want it legal to throw the ball off of the backboard to dunk. The reasoning they give is that it's legal to throw it off of your backboard, but there's no logical distinction between a player dunking it and just catching it and landing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Where is the "self pass" prohibited in the rules? For that matter, where is it defined?

Originally Posted by Toren

And it's not a pass, since a pass by rule is to another player. "In order for a pass to be completed, the ball shall touch another player." (4-24 NCAA).

NFHS 4-31: A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player.

From Noah Webster (who used to live right down the street from me):

1) In football, hockey, and other team sports, a transfer of the ball, puck, etc., to another player of one's own team, usually at some distance. In American football, the pass is through the air by an act of throwing the ball.

2) To emit or discharge from a bodily part and especially the bowels (which has a lot to do with the rule references, explanation, and validation, behind this caseplay).

[HawkeyeCubP]

I feel that the issue here centers around the use of one's own backboard. To get into the definition of a pass and whether or not an official judges the ball movement in these cases to meet that or not is irrelevant, as the case plays in all rule sets clearly state that it's not a violation to throw the ball agains one's own backboard (some of which then go on to say the thrower catches the ball). The issue, as Adam has stated, is whether it matters that the ball, when thrown off one's own backboard, comes back and is touched or caught by the thrower who is either still in contact with the floor or not.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

... the case plays in all rule sets clearly state that it's not a violation to throw the ball against one's own backboard (some of which then go on to say the thrower catches the ball).

Many of us, including me, understand the caseplay, but question the actual rules backing for such a caseplay interpretation. Without the caseplay, I would call this, unless they were airborne the entire time, traveling.

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

The issue, as Adam has stated, is whether it matters that the ball, when thrown off one's own backboard, comes back and is touched or caught by the thrower who is either still in contact with the floor or not.

Can that player, after catching their own legal (made legal by the throw against his own backboard, according to the caseplay) "self pass" (in quotes, because, according to rule, there is no such thing), start a dribble after landing, as they would legally be able to do if it was a try? I would call this an illegal dribble with, or without, the caseplay.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Per NFHS 4-41-2, "A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal."

That is not a try, that is an intentional self pass. Thus, travelling.

Where is the "self pass" prohibited in the rules?

For that matter, where is it defined?

Originally Posted by Adam

Where is the "self pass" prohibited in the rules?

For that matter, where is it defined?

It's a colloquial term, don't get hung up on it.

[dahoopref]

Same play?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Same play?

NFHS. Case play? Legal. Rules, as presently written, assuming this is not a try? Travel.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

It's a colloquial term, don't get hung up on it.

I'm not hung up on it, but I will question it anytime anyone uses the term as the reason (in and of itself) something should be called a violation.

[Dexter555]

There's been debate on whether or not it is considered a try. Would you consider team control to have ended when he released it?

Statistically, if the defense had gotten that off the board, would it be a rebound or a steal if you were keeping the book?