Throw In
 

After a made basket A1 runs the base line and when he is behind the backboard he attempts a thrown in that hits the back of the backboard and comes directly back to him. This ball has never touched inbounds. Do you have anything?

OOB violation/Throw-in violation

I agree that I'm going to probably make the same call, but what rule has been violated?

Actually an out of bounds violation. I guess technically you could say a throw-in violations as well, considering that you did not complete the throw-in properly.

Peace

I can bounce the ball out of bounds and I can turn around and bounce the ball off the back wall. Why can't I bounce the ball off the back of the backboard as long as I complete my legal throw in within 5 seconds

Because the thrower released the ball toward the court as he's required to do within 5 seconds...once that happens, the thrower can't be the first to touch the ball. He also needs to release the ball and cause it to touch another player.

The player has 5 seconds to release the ball INTO the court. The back of the backboard is not part of the court. Once the ball rebounds to A1 he would still have the opportunity to throw the ball to A2 who is on the court.

No you can't.

2013-14 Case Book 9.2.2 Situation A

Thrower A1: (a) causes the ball to carom from the wall behind him/her, or from the floor out of bounds and then into the court; (b) caroms the ball from the back of the backboard to a player in the court; or (c) throws the ball against the side or the front face of the backboard, after which it rebounds into the hands of A2. RULING: Violation in (a) and (b), since the throw touched an object out of bounds. The throw-in in (c) is legal. The side and front face of the backboard are inbounds and, in this specific situation, are treated the same as the floor inbounds.

No of those 3 things has happened in the OP

The back of the backboard is out of bounds by rule. The throw-in touched this object that is out of bounds and therefore it is a violation. Whether or not it is a "run the endline" throw-in or whether the ball comes back to the player is irrelevant—it's a violation. I'm not sure how that case play has nothing to do with the OP. Plus you said that you are allowed to throw the ball off the wall on a throw-in and obviously that's not true.

I think there is a difference between throwing the ball off the back wall and catching it and then throwing it into the court, and throwing the ball off the back wall and letting it bounce into the court without touching it again.

7.7.2
ART. 2 . . . The throw-in starts when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in. The thrower shall release the ball on a pass directly into the court, except as in 7-5-7, within five seconds after the throw-in starts. The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched. The throw-in pass shall not touch a teammate while it is on the out-of-bounds side of the throw-in boundary plane.

He violates in two ways, (1) His pass did not go directly into the court, and (2) the throw in pass did not touch another player on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

The case play references the ball touching out of bounds and then going into the court. My situations are bouncing the ball, off the backboard, floor or back wall and having the ball come straight back to A1. A1 can 100% without a doubt "dribble" the ball while standing out of bounds. So the question is what makes it illegal to throw it against the back of the backboard and have it rebound back to A1 while still out of bounds?

On an end line throw in, we have to determine the intent of the throw. 99% of the time, or more, the intent is obvious. This is one of those times. The intent was to throw the ball onto the court, thus making it a throw in pass. Once that throw in pass touches OOB before touching a player, it is a violation for having a TI pass go OOB before touching a player.

This is the correct understanding and reasoning.

Agree...but some say you can't go by intent but have to go by what actually happens. If that were the case, they never intended to throw it in if it returns to them. ;)

Please note that the front face of the backboard is four feet from the endline on a standard court, so this player threw the ball nearly four feet forward (actually a greater distance when the upward angle is factored in). That most certainly qualifies as a throw-in pass.
Fwiw, I agree that a player may bounce the ball on a rear wall without penalty if it is obvious that there is no intent for this to be the throw-in pass and the ball does not carom into the playing court.

Bounce Pass ???
 

So an inbounder can't make a "bounce pass" throwin, even if he's ten feet back from the boundary, and the ball bounces once out of bounds (within the designated spot), and then is caught by a player inbounds? I'm not sure that I'm calling that a violation in my game.

You would be incorrect, Billy. That is indeed a throw-in violation.

Some just know that determining intent is called judgment. ;)

The intent in the OP is a throw in that came back to A1. On the very next trip down the floor B1 INTENTIONALLY bounces ball off the back board and the ball rebounds directly to him. Someone's got a lot of explaining to do if you call one a violation and the other nothing.

Real world application, you throw the ball four feet into the court, it will be judged you released the ball for the throw-in. As such, this is going to be called a violation every time (save for the time this play may surprise the calling official).

You should call that a violation - this is exactly what is described in the rule quoted above.

I've called it plenty of times. If you're not going to call it if it bounces within the designated spot, why would you call it if it bounces OOB outside of the DS? There's no rule-based distinction there? The ball is not required to stay within the spot, only the player. In fact, if the thrower wants to "dribble", the "dribble" is not required to stay within the DS either.

I don't see why we would judge intent, even in 1% of the cases. We place the ball at the disposal of the thrower, suggesting the player's role at that point. But what else is he to do with the ball? Why else would the player release the ball except to inbound it? Setting aside the issue of intent, which I'd consider irrelevant here, I agree with the second part of this analysis: the ball touched OOB before being touched by another player.

Why is there even a discussion about intent? The rule and case books pretty blatantly support that throwing the ball off an object out of bounds before it touches an inbounds player (not including dribbling on the floor) is a violation—there's no basis in the rule for judging intent. If it happens, it's a violation. Am I oversimplifying this?

It's not unusual, I think, for a player to grab the ball, step OOB and throw the ball against the back wall in frustration. I never even considered that a violation. "Intent" just seems superfluous, reading a term into a rule that isn't there. Some rules talk about intent, others don't, so why import it?

Once you release the ball and it crosses the endline, if it touches anybody or anything other than yourself, you have released the ball for a throw-in. So when it hits the back of the backboard you have committed a throw-in violation.

What about this
 

At the end of a game the inbounder, in adherence to that old bromide of "Roll it", releases the ball behind the endline and it ultimately makes its way onto the court. Do you have a whistle in this case?

If released onto the floor OOB, yes. If released directly in-bounds, no. I have no problem calling the violation in the first situation.

No Exceptions To The Rule ???
 

I know that it's a violation, but I would still have trouble calling it based on intent, and purpose.

Yes, the casebook play is pretty clear.

Nor would I, but it is a violation according to the caseplay. What's everybody else doing on this play: ignore, or violation?

I don't think that I would, but the casebook is pretty clear that it's a violation.

An inbounder can "dribble" the ball, he can make a bounce pass, on a run the endline throwin, to another player out of bounds, but he can't throw a bounce pass, that bounces out of bounds, right in front of him, within his designated spot, to a teammate in bounds?

Yes, the casebook play is quite clear. I guess we have to officiate with the rules that we have, not with the rules that we would like to see.

Billy, the THROW-IN PASS cannot touch anything which is OOB prior to contacting a player on the court. If it does that is a throw-in violation.
Any action which is NOT a throw-in pass does not have to adhere to that restriction. That is why a player may bounce the ball on the OOB area of the floor PRIOR to making a throw-in pass. The thrower could also bounce the ball of the back wall or the stanchion as long as that action is PRIOR to making the throw-in pass and not part of it.

And judgement is worthless if you don't know the underlying rules applicable to the action being judged.

I don't see this, but I agree it's not a throw in pass, so it's not restricted the same way.

Now, if a player suddenly thinks he's Meadowlark Lemon and wants to throw it off of the wall to a teammate in bounds, that's a violation.

Sweet Georgia Brown ...
 

Thanks for the great explanation guys, and for taking the time to post it.

I love the Meadowlark Lemon play. It should be in the casebook. And none of this A1, A2 crap, just have Meadowlark pass it to Curly Neal in the caseplay.

Those people should brush up on rules knowledge and comprehension. It's only difficult for those people who ignore words such as "deems", "provided", "if", "judges", and "judgment" or who recite rules by adding words that aren't there.

Glad you finally agree with me.