Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
I'm not saying it must be a try. A try requires intent. If intent were required, we'd be back in the same boat as before.
It is, however, important to know the intent an purpose of the rule...why it was added. It was not added to cover an entry pass that is tipped up into the basket. It was not added to cover a pass around the perimeter that is swatted such that it goes in. It was added to cover a ball that was thrown toward the basket that goes in....no need to decided if it was a bad pass or a try.
|
Camron --
I agree that what you stated is what the rule *should be*.
I agree that what you stated is how the rule is interpreted under NCAA rules.
It's not, however, how the rule is interpreted under FED rules. In FED, it matters not why the ball left A's hand -- only that it did so behind the three-point line and subsequently went in the basket touching nothing other than a defender.
|
I consider the action by the defender that completely changes the trajectory of the ball to be an entirely different action...not unlike the defender catching the ball and mistakenly shooting it into A's basket. It's no longer a ball thrown by A when B changes the path of the ball such that it ends up 15' from where A was throwing it.
|
Isn't that completely different than what the language in case book play 5.2.1SitC(a&b) is saying, Camron? That case book play refers to a ball being "thrown" from outside the arc, then subsequently being touched by the defense. The ruling was that if the defensive touching was legal, the ball would still count as a 3 if it went in, no matter where the defender was standing. Iow, the legal touching by the defense isn't really a factor at all in the case of a ball thrown from behind the arc. If the ball goes in, it's a 3- no matter what.
|
The assumption is that the defender merely "touched" the ball and that the throw was the force that put the ball in the basket or it is not possible to tell if the defensive touch caused the ball to go in or not.
In EVERY case published, the situation is of a ball being thrown in a way that it might go in. The case play only clarifies that the defensive touching doesn't change the status of the ball if it was on a path that just might be a shot.
Why is everyone forgetting the fundamentals....knowing the purpose and intent of the rule.
Yes, it may be worded poorly. However, at the time of the rule changed it was quite clear what case this was intended to cover. It was meant to take the judgement out of a throw that just might have been a try.
It was NEVER intended to cover throw that was undisputably a pass such as an entry pass that get's deflected up and into the basket by a defender or a pass going away from the basket that gets diverted toward the basket by a defensive bat.
If you want to go by the strict wording of the rules....These situations are NOT a ball thrown into the basket. They are cases of the defense batting the ball into the basket. The throw ended when the defense batted the ball.