JR, You missed the point that I was trying to make.
The rule Camron cited says that "A ball which touches ..the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds." My point was that this is not always true. A 3 pt. try which hits the backboard and then goes in is one such exception. For if hitting the backboard really was treated the same as hitting the floor, then this try would be over upon hitting the backboard, and the ball subsequently entering the basket would only be worth two points. This is certainly not true. That is what Camron wrote. I am saying that from this example we can infer that the ball hitting the backboard it is NOT the same as hitting the floor, not matter how plainly 4-4-5 seems to say that.
I believe that you are reading 4-4 as an absolute which applies in all situations. This is not the case. An official only applies this rule when needing to determine the ball's location in order to call a backcourt or 10 second violation, or something along these lines.
In fact, there are many situations where the application of 4-4 would be quite wrong.
Even you will concede that during a clear 3pt try (not pass or thrown ball) which is deflected on its way up by a defender who is located inside the two point area, the ball DOES NOT take on the location of that defender (as per 4-4-3) nor is the deflection THE SAME as the ball touching the floor at that defender's location (as 4-4-4 states). Rule 4-4 simply doesn't apply to this situation. That was my original point.
Now it is true that I selected a vague and poorly worded, but recently amended, rule to support this claim. You and others have made that clear and I have conceded that. However, my original point still stands. The ball touching a player IS NOT THE SAME as ACTUALLY touching the floor at that location. 4-4-4 is not a blanket rule meant to apply in all situations.
PS In the play where the ball hits the player in the head and then goes in you have incorrectly argued that this is only two points due to 4-4-4.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The 3-point shot hitting B1 on the head in the key is EXACTLY THE SAME as hitting the floor at that location in the key-explicitly by Rule 4-4-4.That now ends the 3-point try under Rule 4-40-4.
|
Even three year's ago, when we all agreed that this play was only worth two points 4-4-4 was not the reason that was so.
This rule has nothing to do with it. Even the case book play which you keep citing says that the try ended "when it was obviously short and below the ring," not when it hit the player's shoulder. That try had ended well before striking the player. So you cannot cite 4-4-4 as the reason that it ended.
Only the certainty that it will or will not be successful, actually hitting the floor (not vicariously hitting the floor), or the ball becoming dead ends a try.
For example: If a 3 pt. try on the way up happened to deflect off the head of a defender, inside the two point area, but located very near to the shooter, and then go in, it would not end and would still be worth three. No matter whether the play happened three years ago or yesterday.