Thread: 3? 2?
View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 05, 2003, 12:58pm
MN 3 Sport Ref MN 3 Sport Ref is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 292
I did a lot of research after my game last nighton this as there seems to be som contradicting statements in the FED books. Consider everything being released beyond the 3-point arc. It seems to me the key is the offical needs to determine if the thrown ball wheter it is a try or not has a chance of entering the basket. If it does and is not touched by the defense it is 3 points regardless 5.2.1 and 5.2.1B in casebook. If the thrown ball is touched by A or B in its downward flight, above the goal w/ the possibility of entering the basket we have goaltending.(4-22) However it is not that easy. For goaltending to occur the airborne ball must be a try. When an ally-oop occurs and the offensive player catches the ball and dunks it have you ever seen goaltending called or if the defense intercepts it? This ball as we have previously discussed is "close to" the basket and still has the possibility of going in. Here is the first of the contradicting language. The pass for alley-oop is clearly not a try then but we award 3 points if it goes into the hoop touched by B as clearly described in 5.2.1 It is obviously 2 if touched by a team A player (completed alley oop) This is understanding that the ball still had a chance of going in the hoop. Again officials judgement.

However in casebook4.40.4 the ball isclearly decribed (in the officials judgement) as having no chance anylonger of entering the hoop. Thus we score two points regardless of if A or B touches as the try had ended. In essence B is "shooting" at the wrong basket. However 5.2.1 clearly contradicts this by stating that any try, tap, or THROWN BALL (not a try) that enters the bucket from beyond 19-9 that does not touch a teammate, official, or the floor counts 3 points.

Thus we obviously have circular language and there is a case for 2 and a case for 3 points being awarded. Thus IMO we need a wording clarification in the FED book to clearly give us jurisdiction to rule one way or the other.

Sorry guys this is so long, I needed to work it out in my head more for myself than anything!!
Reply With Quote