It's 3 points
 

This has been an ongoing dispute, since the NFHS rule speaks only to a ball from being thrown from beyond the 3-point arc. As Billy cites, casebook plays in 5.2.1 are unequivocal that a ball touched by another offensive player outside the 3-point arc or by the defense inside or outside the arc are counted as 3 points if the ball enters the basket. There is no rules requirement that the throw be judged a try or that there was any attempt at a try (as in a pass that deflects off another player.)

This year's IAABO refresher exam had a question on this -- and the answer was that it does count as 3 points. The original answer key said 2 points, but that was changed after a closer look at the case book plays and after consultation with the NFHS rule book editor.

IAABO Refresher Exam Q. 35
A-1 is behind the 3-point line near the top of the free throw semi-circle. A-1 attempts a diagonal pass to a teammate in the corner. B-1 deflects the pass which enters the basket. The official awards Team A three points. Is the official correct?

Answer: Yes 5.2.1, Case Book 5.2.1 Situation C(b)

In Camron's citation, the try has ended because it is short and below the level of the ring. In your citation there is no try, just balls thrown from outside the 3-point arc. I see a difference in the plays, thus a difference in the rulings.

Silly IAABO, wrong again.

What part of "after consultation with the NFHS rule book editor" was unclear?

Nothing...it is still wrong.

All you have to do is rule all thrown balls as a try and then you get to the citation I made where it is 2 points. Case closed.

Probably won’t get far citing editors. These case plays are not consistent.. If you only look at second one(any thrown ball touched by D inside arc counts 3) then there’s no reason for first one.(below rim level touch by D is 2 points). They are both in case book. We have to try to make them both work...How? If it could possible be..any way shape or form a try then give them 3. If it never could be or is completely over..then it’s a 2.

Here I Come To Save The Day ...
 

Nice citation BayStateRef, thanks, especially if the answer is indeed not just an IAABO "interpretation" but a NFHS consultation.

While the "interpretation" may be deemed wrong by some highly respected and esteemed Forum members, it's still a valid IAABO/NFHS "interruption", and until changed may be the only "interpretation" we can hang our hats on.

While I now feel better about my opinion, I would still like to see some of the original intent language back from ancient times when the rule was changed.

How about Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. to the rescue?

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.r...=0&w=167&h=163

Inconsistent ...
 

Really? The NFHS inconsistent? Please say it ain't so.

It’s not an interpretation. It’s two separate case plays. You’ve put them both up in previous posts. They have to be read together..

Funk and Wagnalls ...
 

Sorry. Fixed it. Forgot to put quotes around all the words. I meant "interpretation" in the Funk and Wagnalls sense, the generic sense, rather then the specific NFHS interpretation sense. Sorry.