In or out?

[MD Longhorn]

Y'all are mistaken when you say the only way a ball can rebound toward the end line is if it hit the back. The ball is round. Did we forget that?

Go stand directly on the side of the backboard. Throw the ball at the side such that it hits the side of the backboard on the corner nearest out of bounds. Watch it bounce toward the end line ... because the ball is round.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Y'all are mistaken when you say the only way a ball can rebound toward the end line is if it hit the back. The ball is round. Did we forget that?

Go stand directly on the side of the backboard. Throw the ball at the side such that it hits the side of the backboard on the corner nearest out of bounds. Watch it bounce toward the end line ... because the ball is round.

That isn't the OP. In the OP, the player was closer to the end-line. That's when using the angle the ball rebounds comes into play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That isn't the OP. In the OP, the player was closer to the end-line. That's when using the angle the ball rebounds comes into play.

I get that, but I was making the point that the ball going toward the end line is meaningless. The ball could rebound toward the end line from almost any angle without striking the back of the backboard.

The only "proof" it hit the back, based on angle alone, would be if it went toward the center of the base of the backboard after coming from outside the edge of the backboard.

Better... unless you KNOW it hit the back, it didn't hit the back.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I get that, but I was making the point that the ball going toward the end line is meaningless. The ball could rebound toward the end line from almost any angle without striking the back of the backboard.

The only "proof" it hit the back, based on angle alone, would be if it went toward the center of the base of the backboard after coming from outside the edge of the backboard.

Better... unless you KNOW it hit the back, it didn't hit the back.

If the player (well, the ball when the ball is released) is not behind (where behind means closer to the end line than) the backboard, then it's impossible to hit the backboard. So, nothing about contacting the backboard / angle matters.

If the ball is behind the backboard, then the angle is used to determine where the ball hit.

Benefit of the doubt to "the ball is NOT behind the backboard when released".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I get that, but I was making the point that the ball going toward the end line is meaningless. The ball could rebound toward the end line from almost any angle without striking the back of the backboard.

The only "proof" it hit the back, based on angle alone, would be if it went toward the center of the base of the backboard after coming from outside the edge of the backboard.

Better... unless you KNOW it hit the back, it didn't hit the back.

Actually, basic physics says it can't. The only surface of the backboard that can cause the ball to change direction towards the endline when it wasn't already heading towards the endline is the rear surface.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, basic physics says it can't. The only surface of the backboard that can cause the ball to change direction towards the endline when it wasn't already heading towards the endline is the rear surface.

What about some "english" on the ball - like playing pool?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

What about some "english" on the ball - like playing pool?

That caveat was previously covered.

[just another ref]

One more thing. All this speculation about which way the ball may bounce due to physics seems to also be based on the assumption that the surface on the side of the board is perfectly smooth. Is it? I'm thinking many times it is not, especially if there is a pad around the edge of the board. All the more reason to err on the side of a no call.