2 or 3 point field goal?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Does that count as 2 or 3?

5-2 2 Scoring: Art. 1 A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who
is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points. A ball
that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal
from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown.

Is this a thrown ball? Yes.

Is the thrown ball successful? Yes.

Is the ball thrown from behind the three point arc? Yes.

Does the thrown ball touch the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official? No.

Does this count as three points? Yes.

Should it count as three points? My opinion, rule is poorly written, no.

I would love to see this same play, but with the ball deflecting off the head of a defensive player. Count that as three and the official will need a police escort out to his car after the game.

[just another ref]

Billy, read the thing on page 8 about intent and purpose of the rules and move on.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Billy, read the thing on page 8 about intent and purpose of the rules and move on.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Should it count as three points? My opinion, rule is poorly written, no. I would love to see this same play, but with the ball deflecting off the head of a defensive player. Count that as three and the official will need a police escort out to his car after the game.

What's worse than an unruly mob of Swiss farmers carrying lit torches and pitchforks?

An unruly mob basketball officials carrying lit torches and pitchforks.

Poorly written rule. I'll hang my hat on intent and purpose. But, still a poorly written rule.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In a real game, if a pass from behind the arc deflects off the shoulder of a defensive player inside the arc and goes in the basket, I'm probably counting it as a two. I can sell that to players, coaches, fans, and probably my partner ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Does that count as 2 or 3?

And I still love WreckRef's video. You can't take that away from me.

[bucky]

Just finished watching Blazing Saddles so I must, I must add my thoughts.

In my judgement, the player is making a pass, not a throw for goal. (Is there anyone who thinks the player is shooting a shot? If the player was fouled would anyone here have them in the act of shooting? And if so, would anyone here give them a chance at a 4-point play? My guess is "no" to all those questions.)

Ergo, Rule 4 Section 41 and Rule 5 Section 2 allow me to judge that 2 points are awarded. If anyone judges that the player was shooting, then obviously award 3 points.

BillyMac, you indicated "Most of us (hopefully, the rule changed from it's original form (had to be a try) when the arc was first painted on the court) are counting a wayward alley oop pass from behind the arc that goes in as three points. If that same alley oop ball touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, or an official, it only counts two points, by rule. But the rule doesn't say anything about the same alley oop pass touching a defender. That only leaves one choice, three points.

It looks as if you accidentally left out a portion of the rule (although you quoted the entire rule correctly in a different post). You appear to be indicating that the rule mentions a teammate but nothing about a defender. Below is the rule and I highlighted some wording that I feel includes a defensive player:

5-2 2 Scoring: Art. 1 A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points. A ball that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown.

They listed some specific items (floor, teammate, official) but they also have "or any other goal" . Would not the defensive deflection in the OP be part of "any other goal from the field"?

(Maybe I am advocating on your behalf. I do not see how 3 points could ever be awarded in the OP unless someone possibly thought the player was shooting and in that case, I would hate to see their judgement applied to any other part of the game)

Time for bed, I must, I must.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown.

Nice try. I believe that "any other goal from the field" refers to shots (or wayward passes) from inside the arc, could be a layup, could be a midrange jumper, could be a dunk.

Poorly worded rule. Let's just go with intent and purpose.

[Rich]

I'm counting this as a 3. Rules support is there.

Remind me if it ever happens to me. It hasn't and likely never will.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm counting this as a 3. Rules support is there.

Remind me if it ever happens to me. It hasn't and likely never will.

Why would you ignore the case play that says otherwise?

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)

It has obviously happened and will happen again.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why would you ignore the case play that says otherwise?



It has obviously happened and will happen again.

Camron, your post/case(involves a try) leads me to believe that you feel the player was attempting a throw for goal or shot. Is it correct that you feel the player was shooting?

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why would you ignore the case play that says otherwise?



It has obviously happened and will happen again.

I agree IF the shot has clearly fallen short. In the video from the OP, the shot/pass has not had the opportunity to make it to ring level, much less fall below it. If I encounter this case, I'm counting 3. If I have to judge whether it is a shot or pass? Well much like the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, I think I'm going with a shot until proven a pass.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why would you ignore the case play that says otherwise?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)

The caseplay involves a try. The video involves a pass. Passes don't end when they obviously fall short and below the ring. Trys end under those same circumstances.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I agree IF the shot has clearly fallen short. In the video from the OP, the shot/pass has not had the opportunity to make it to ring level, much less fall below it. If I encounter this case, I'm counting 3. If I have to judge whether it is a shot or pass? Well much like the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, I think I'm going with a shot until proven a pass.

This op play was clearly a pass and had no chance to go in until the deflection. If any thrown ball counts 3 if thrown from outside arc then we wouldn't have a need for the rule 4 play. A try is a thrown ball. We'd Use rule 5 play and nothing else matters. Because we DO have the rule 4 play, below ring level phrase, we know rule 5 play can't really mean ANY thrown ball touched by D is 3 points. What does it mean?

I had a wing to wing pass deflected by a 6'7" defender at FT line. It went straight back and in. If I only considered rule 5 play it should been 3. Because rule 4 play I counted 2. If a pass has ANY ANY remote chance of going in and it's tipped by defender I'll count 3. If it has no chance without the deflection I'll count 2. I think we need to consider the plays together and figure out a meaning instead of just looking at each one individually.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why would you ignore the case play that says otherwise?



It has obviously happened and will happen again.

Because I don't think the case play fits the video in this thread.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I agree IF the shot has clearly fallen short. In the video from the OP, the shot/pass has not had the opportunity to make it to ring level, much less fall below it. If I encounter this case, I'm counting 3. If I have to judge whether it is a shot or pass? Well much like the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, I think I'm going with a shot until proven a pass.

It didn't make it to the ring level but was falling....with no chance to enter. It was not going in. I think that is the relevant point from the case.

You're to judge shot over pass when there is ambiguity...no guessing the intent. But point of the case above is that when it is clear that it is not going in, any possible shot is over. We still judge the end of the "try"/"throw".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Because I don't think the case play fits the video in this thread.

Really. I think it fits it almost perfectly....a throw that drops well short and isn't clearly not doing in that is deflected up on a new path such that it does in.

The only differences are head/shoulder/hand and the word try vs throw.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... ring level ...with no chance to enter.

Part of the definition of how a try ends (and part of the goaltending definition). But there is no such language regarding the end of a pass.

Don't even try to describe what occurs in the video as a try. It isn't a try. It's a pass. One can't use language that describes how the try ends, because it's not a try. It's a pass.