Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Even the "try" that falls short of the rim, hits a defender's head, and bounces in? Counter to case 4.41.4b?? The one that says it's a two.
If your assertion were correct (and it's not), you would have to determine if A1 put up a try or throw since 4.41.4b says a try is a 2 when it bounces in off of the defender but you're saying it is a 3 if it is a thrown ball when it bounces in off of a defender (since it didn't hit the floor/official/teammate). Precisely the point of judgement that the rule was to remove.
|
That is why I believe that Dexter and M&M are incorrect about the application of this rule. As long as 4.41.4SitB remains in the book, it is impossible to use their checklist way of thinking. Simply because that play meets all of the items in the checklist, yet the NFHS still says that the goal is only worth TWO points. They have no answer for that.
Furthermore, I agree with this thought:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
has already told us their thinking and intent....they were going after a ball that was initially thrown towards the basket that may or may not have been a try....one that required an officials judgment to determine if it was 3 or 2 simply based on whether the official felt the thrower was attempting to shot or not...mind reading required.
It was changed to cover those cases where the throw had a possibility of entering the basket on it's own. It was NOT meant to cover balls that were thrown with no chance of entering the basket but for another player causing it to go towards the basket.
|
It is a very logical and common sense application of the rules, which fits with BOTH of the current Case Book plays. (Which should still be clarified!)