2 or 3 point field goal?

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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 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

I think it fits it almost perfectly ...

Agree. With emphasis on "almost". The rule is poorly worded.