Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by CaptStevenM
A1 picks up his dripple
|
I hate to see it when they drop their dripple. . .
Oh, keep it productive. Sigh. Fine!
Quote:
|
and throws a hard pass into the lane. The ball bounces of B player and goes strait up and into the hoop, without touching another A player. We counted the basket as a three and played on. Saying it was the same as a tip on a shot because A1 threw the ball in from behind the three point line.
|
Whoa, I didn't see it but it sounds like it maybe shoulda been a 2-point basket only. The ball had to "legally" be touched by the defender in this play for a 3-point basket to be credited. Iow, it had to still be on the way up. That's NFHS casebook play 5.2.1SitC(b). If the ball legally hits a defender on the way DOWN inside the 3-point line or it is obviously short or below the basket ring, the shot has ended and if it subsequently goes in, you only award 2 points. See NFHS casebook play 4.40.4SitB.
|
First of all, the ball was legally touched by the defense. It wasn't a try, so there's no goaltending to worry about. Second, we had a huge thread on this a while ago. I don't have the cases with me, but from that conversation, I clearly remember that the rule says that "any thrown ball" that starts outside the arc and goes in without touching the floor or another offensive player is a 3. I'm gonna go try to find that thread. Lemme just hit the "search" button. . .  [/B]
|
My thoughts on this play are that the NFHS did a very poor job when they made that rule change (5-2-1) in the 2001-2002 book. The idea was good (to make a lob pass that goes in worth 3 pts.), but the wording of the new rule had some ( very likely) unintended consequences. One of them is this particular play. While if one just reads the new rule and takes it as written, Chuck is correct, and the play is worth 3 points. I believe that is a very unfortunate ruling, and that the NFHS should write a new casebook play to make it clear that they did not wish to contradict 4.40.4 sit B (b) as JR points out. I have to believe that this ruling is still correct since the NFHS continued to print it in the current casebook.
Right now the two rules conflict, and that is not a good situation. The play should be worth only 2 pts.
What is the difference if the ball is thrown with an arc that goes above the level of the ring and then back down to hit a defender, standing in the lane on the shoulder, and goes in or if the ball is thrown hard and in a straight line at the defender? A team should only be awarded three points if the ball had a chance to go in after being thrown.
I just looked up the comment that accompanied that rule change and it says:
"While in most situations a "try" can be differentiated from a pass, to eliminate possible confusion this change should help to clarify by not requiring judgment as to whether the ball in flight was a pass or try." 2001-2002 Rules Book page 72.
Therefore, this rule change is intended to only apply to that particular situation. We are not supposed to use it to justify awarding 3 pts on a play like the one described above. Bottom line: use common sense and know the intent of the rule!
[Edited by Nevadaref on Apr 28th, 2004 at 06:12 AM]