Use of own backboard (not a try)
 

Link to play here

Someone set me straight on this. Either way. Legal or violation.

Mr. Adams is making it sound like it should be a violation in his latest video bulletin. I want to know what makes it illegal per what's printed.

A.R. 108. A1 intercepts a pass and dribbles toward A’s basket for a breakaway layup. Near A’s free-throw line, A1 legally stops and ends his dribble. A1 throws the ball against A’s backboard and follows the throw. While airborne, A1 rebounds the ball off the backboard and dunks.

RULING: The play shall be legal since the backboard is located in A1’s front court, which A1 is entitled to use. (Rule 9-13.1 and 5-1.1 and .6)

Mkay. I've also cited NFHS Case Play 9.5(a). NCAA-W A.R. 68, NCAA-M A.R. 71 to support what you just asserted. I need someone to tell my why it'd be a violation. Which is what I'm gleaning from that Coordinator's question on that bulletin.

It isn't a violation...you only get into issues when you throw the ball off an opponent's backboard.

In the video posted the player doesn't remain airborne. He catches the "rebound" and lands on the floor before attempting a shot.

I think it's an illegal dribble and a violation.

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.

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.

In the NCAA video, Adams states that A1's throw off the backboard is not a try.

A1 obviously travels prior to the throw, though.

Well that shows why I shouldn't comment on NCAA videos.

Also, here's the NFHS case book play:

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)

Haven't We Discussed This Before, Ad Nauseam ???
 

May be used to do what? As Billy Shakespeare's Hamlet would say, "Ay, there's the rub". And why the quotation marks around equipment?

Many Forum members have tried to plead the case that something like this should be considered a try, even when it really isn't, but there's nothing in the rules that say that this should be considered a try. Note that the case play cited above avoids the word "try".

"Equipment"? So if I end my dribble, and bounce the ball of my headband, a piece of my team's equipment, then that means that I can legally dribble again?

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.

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

For that matter, where is it defined?

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.

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.

Blue Back Speller ...
 

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).

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.

Caseplay Versus Rules ...
 

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.

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.

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

Same play?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1oBtRd9dDgY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Caseplay Trumps Written Rules ...
 

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

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.

Team Control?
 

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?

Next time I steal a ball in my Old Fat Slow Men's League, I'm gonna streak toward my basket, throw the ball off my backboard once I get to the three point line, catch it and dribble to regain some balance, then I'm gonna do it again near the foul line, and again in the paint. Then I"ll score the basket. This play is made possible by the foot speed of this League"s players....

When the losers on the other team attempt to call a traveling violation, I'll refer them to this thread.

Game time 6:30 tomorrow morning!

It's A Bird, It's A Plane, It's A Try, It's A Pass ...
 

No. It's not a try. It states as much in the thread title. So it's not a try. Is it a pass? If so, there's still team control. If it's not a try, and if it's not a pass, then just what the hell is it?

A violation.

Without the Case Book ruling specifically stating that the action is legal, this would be a violation for an illegal dribble.

I pretty much agree with most comments so far. I'm just trying to reconcile the rules and the case play. Because this could conceivably happen in a boys' state playoff game in the near future (I see it happening unintended, with the thrower coming down because they don't handle the bounce from the backboard well), and I want to decide how I'd call it.

The only place my brain is finding any kind of solace is that, if possible, this live, loose ball exists outside the realm of a pass, try, dribble, or fumble.

According to the NFHS Case Book, the proper way to handle this during a game is to rule it a legal play.
Once the ball is thrown off the backboard of the offensive team anyone may go retrieve it and can legally do anything after getting it.

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.

Fair enough and I admit my post was based on pure NFHS rules. So bearing that in mind, the NFHS issued a very clear interpretation. Why try to split hairs when you don't have to? What is really gained by trying to? Not much I'd argue.