Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
You're right - the case play does make it clear, but you are mixing the two cases. The one you keep citing specifically mentions "try", the one I cite says "throw". If you have a "try", then you do have all the elements of when a try ends. However, if the ball is thrown, the only specific requirements listed in the rules for it to be not counted as a 3-pt. basket is if it touches a teammate within the arc, hits an official, or hits the floor. 5.2.1(c) also says none of the elements you've listed.
|
Since the rule is effectively telling us to consider the thrown ball a try by counting it a 3, consistency would suggest that the opportunity for the two alternatives to be a 3 point basket would end with similar, if not the same, criteria.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Philisophically I don't disagree with you that it seems silly to count your examples as 3-point baskets. It's just that the rule and case make it clear they are.
|
If we were to treat a try and a throw differently, as you're suggesting is the case, we'd be back in the same boat as before the rule was changed...we just relocated the dilemma. For a ball that is deflected into the goal after dropping below the rim, you must (with your claim) decide if it was a try or not. If it is a try, you're agreeing it is a two (case 4.41.4b). However, you're also asserting that if it is not a try, that it will be a 3 (5.2.1c).
Hmmm....that can't be right. That is exacly why the rule was changed at all....to remove the need to decide try/non-try when the thrown ball might have been a try. It never intended to turn an obvious pass into a 3 pointer. I'm claiming an interpretation that treats the result the same whether it is a try or not...precisely the purpose of the rule change.