Thought provoking back court question.

Jurassic Referee

TimTaylor wrote
We're not mind readers.

That's the bottom line imo. You can't give a completely definitive answer to what is basically a judgement call right from the git-go. Unfortunately, Catawba is trying to do just that.

An analogy would be to look at a play and say "There was contact on that play. It must be a foul". The correct answer however is that there was contact on the play, but it's only a foul if the contact was judged as not being incidental. And that's up to the calling official solely, no one else.

Nevadaref

JR it doesn't seem that you have a problem with the ruling given, but rather have a big problem with the Catawba people categorically stating that this action is not a try for goal. In other words they are removing a necessary element of judgment by the official as to whether this action was a pass or a try.

Oddly enough, you seem to being guilty of the same thing when you state "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo." I would rather see you not use that criterion, but judge each individual play on its own.

For example, consider the following play:
A1 drives the end line and reaches a position in the lane directly under the backboard when he ends his dribble. He spots teammate A2 open near the top of the key, so he jumps and throws the ball in that direction. The ball strikes the underside of the front of the ring and due to the change in direction sails past A2 and into the backcourt. A2 is then the first player to touch the ball.

Surely you would deem this play a backcourt violation, right?

Jurassic Referee

Nevadaref wrote
JR it doesn't seem that you have a problem with the ruling given, but rather have a big problem with the Catawba people categorically stating that this action is not a try for goal. In other words they are removing a necessary element of judgment by the official as to whether this action was a pass or a try.

Oddly enough, you seem to being guilty of the same thing when you state "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo." I would rather see you not use that criterion, but judge each individual play on its own.

For example, consider the following play:
A1 drives the end line and reaches a position in the lane directly under the backboard when he ends his dribble. He spots teammate A2 open near the top of the key, so he jumps and throws the ball in that direction. The ball strikes the underside of the front of the ring and due to the change in direction sails past A2 and into the backcourt. A2 is then the first player to touch the ball.

Surely you would deem this play a backcourt violation, right?

What part of "IN MY OPINION" did you fail to comprehend, Nevada.

Comprehension 101.

I said that it could be called either. I also said that I, JR, would personally call it a try and NO backcourt violation. I don't have a problem at all with anybody else having a different opinion, and saying that in their opinion, it wasn't a try and therefore it was a back court violation. I do have a major problem with the people at Catawba turning a judgement call into a non-judgement call though, which is what they are doing.

And your example is a judgement call also, and could be ruled either way too. Why? Because maybe you are able to, but the majority of officials can't read minds.

Dan_ref

Jurassic Referee wrote
OK, I get you now.

A pre-teen daughter, eh? I'll bet you have a dog too. I can tell just from your posts that you're probably an animal lover...

Yeahbut he stopped that when the ASPCA took him to court and got an injunction...

Jurassic Referee

Dan_ref wrote
Yeahbut he stopped that when the ASPCA took him to court and got an injunction...

OmyGod......

When I said "animal lover", I really had no idea. 😮

I changed my mind. He can't be a Yankees fan. He has to be a BoSox fan.

Shoulda known......:rolleyes:

Nevadaref

You are failing to recognize that your OPINION is even more declarative than the ruling of the Catawba people.

Catawba is actually being much more reasonable than you are, since they are allowing for the official to judge this action to be a pass. You are flatly stating that it is always a try. That is just wrong.

Catawba writes, "Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass" then this is a backcourt violation.

JR says, "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo" no matter what, I'm not calling backcourt.

So could you please show me a rule that says that? Where is it in any of the NFHS books that just because the ball hits the ring it is automatically a try?

In short, your opinion is unreasonable and does not allow for this play to be called properly. YOU, not Catawba, are the one turning a judgment call into a non-judgment call by stating that this is always a try for goal when you are the official.

Now go back to Comprehension 100, since you are obviously not ready for the 101 level yet.😃

Jurassic Referee

Nevadaref wrote
Catawba is actually being much more reasonable than you are, since they are allowing for the official to judge this action to be a pass. You are flatly stating that it is always a try. That is just wrong.

Catawba writes, "Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass" then this is a backcourt violation.

JR says, "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo" no matter what, I'm not calling backcourt.

Catawba is saying that the ONLY possible ruling is that the play is a pass. They are saying that there is never any judgement involved.

I'm saying that it could be a pass OR a try depending on each individual official's personal judgement. Then I gave you MY personal judgement. If my personal judgement is that it's a try, then I can't be wrong on that straight judgement call.

You still fail to comprehend that.

Nevadaref

Jurassic Referee wrote
Catawba is saying that the ONLY possible ruling is that the play is a pass. They are saying that there is never any judgement involved.

I don't believe that that is an accurate assessment of their ruling.

JTRICE wrote
The answer as posted on the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association board:

Answer: The official was correct. Although the situation would have resulted in a three point goal if the ball had passed through the goal, this would have been under the rule (5.2.1) regarding "a thrown ball from the field by a player from behind the team's own 19 foot, 9 inch arc." Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass, by rule (4.12.4) team control did not end. Therefore, Team A, who had control, was the last to touch the ball before it went backcourt and the first to touch after it went backcourt. By rule (Rule 9.9.1) this is a backcourt violation.

Clearly Catawba is basing its ruling on the official's decision as to whether this was a pass or a try. YOU are the one who won't allow for it to be anything other than a try.

Jurassic Referee

Nevadaref wrote
I don't believe that that is an accurate assessment of their ruling.

Clearly Catawba is basing its ruling on the official's decision as to whether this was a pass or a try. YOU are the one who won't allow for it to be anything other than a try.

Un-freaking believable.:rolleyes:

Catawba issued a ruling that it is always a pass and therefore it is always a violation. I disagree with that. That is their ruling only. They do not have any definitive rules citation to make that particular ruling imo. End of story.

I'm done, Nevada. Find somebody else for the rest of this one.

Dan_ref

Nevadaref wrote
I don't believe that that is an accurate assessment of their ruling.

Clearly Catawba is basing its ruling on the official's decision as to whether this was a pass or a try. YOU are the one who won't allow for it to be anything other than a try.

You do need to re-take reading comprehension 101.

He is saying the official is free to rule on the play as his judgement dictates, either a pass or a try. He then says as he reads *this* play he would rule it a try.

lorenj

TADW_Elessar wrote
FIBA 15.1 goes: "A shot for a field goal or a free throw is when the ball is held in a player’s hand(s) and is then thrown through the air towards the opponents' basket."

This would surely qualify as a "shot for a field goal".

What do american rules say?

NFHS rule 4-41-2:
" A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team's own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal..."

The definition of a pass is in NFHS rule 4-31:
"A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player."

Without seeing the play, I don't think that anyone can say for sure what the correct ruling is. The official has to determine whether A1 directed the ball toward A2 (which would be a pass) or toward team A's basket (which would be a try for field goal).

From the description given, I would probably rule that A1 was trying for goal. Since the ball hit the rim, A1 must have been directing the ball toward his/her team's basket. However, without actually seeing the play, it is hard to say for sure what the correct ruling is.

[deleted]

All I know is, that it must really suck to officiate in Catawba!😃

just another ref

The case play referenced earlier (4.15.4 sit c) tells us that the throw in question is a try, so I don't see that it applies here. The whole deal here is whether it is a try or not. The OP in this thread gives the impression (to me anyway) that the throw comes from near the division line. If time is not an issue, that alone would make one doubt that it was a try. Look at the whole picture. If there was a guy near the rim attempting to catch this ball, I would have no problem calling it a pass, so therefore, the violation is correct.

Adam

I don't know, just because there's a fella ready to catch the ball doesn't mean much. May have been going up just to make sure. I'm leaning towards a more loose philosophy anyway, so if I can justify a no-call, I'm going down that road.

just another ref

The guy trying to catch it alone would be a relatively small piece of the puzzle. After further consideration, I decided that the OP did not specify where the throw came from, but it was mentioned that he had crossed the division line to let us know that the ball had achieved frontcourt status prior to the release. BUT, if indeed this was ruled a pass, where the player was when the ball was released would not matter in this situation. I think Coach P hit the nail on the head on this one. If A1 was fouled in this situation, we must decide whether it was a try or not, regardless of what it hit or didn't hit. In the original sit in this post, we would actually have the luxury of a little more time to make this decision. The biggest factor in this decision, imo, would be the mechanics/body language of the player making the pass/try. For most, not all, players, the mechanics on the two are quite different. I would treat this like the player slapping the backboard. If I can possibly imagine this was a legitimate block attempt, no call. In this case, if I can imagine that it was a try, no call.

BktBallRef

LOL! Keep on keepin' on, folks!!

just another ref

BktBallRef wrote
LOL! Keep on keepin' on, folks!!

This one sailed right over my head.

Camron Rust

Scrapper1 wrote
Especially since if it goes in, instead of bouncing off the rim, we're going to give 3 points.

Points can be scored without a try so that adds nothing to the discussion.

refnrev

JTRICE wrote
This is another interesting question from the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association in South Carolina.

I will post the answer and reason later today.

________________________________________________

Dude, is anyone even remotely sober when you guys in the Catawba River Association get together and think this stuff up?

BktBallRef

just another ref wrote
This one sailed right over my head.

I'm just sitting here, eating my popcorn, while you guys discuss this silly play.

It's simple...if you judge the nthrow a try, it's not a BC violation. If you judge it not to be a try, it's a violation.

You could argue forever whether it's a try or not. No one will win.

« Previous Page Next Page »