Three-point attempt at clock expiration hits floor; bounces through basket

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Two. The thrown ball had no chance to enter the basket on its own prior to the deflection off the defender’s shoulder.

I may be wrong because I've never dealt with this specific question before, but I believe that the one and only time officials have to rule on whether or not a ball has a chance to go into basket is in regard to a try/goaltending.

I'm spitballing here by saying "one and only" but I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong and we'll all learn something.

In a slightly related topic, regarding released buzzer beating shots, officials will have to rule whether a throw is a try, or something else that's not a try.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I may be wrong because I've never dealt with this specific question before, but I believe that the one and only time officials have to rule on whether or not a ball has a chance to go into basket is in regard to a try/goaltending.

I'm spitballing here by saying "one and only" but I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong and we'll all learn something.

This case illustrates that it is two points...

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 cases you cited above have to do with judging intent...not required to determine if 2 or 3. If the player throws it to the basket and it goes in, we count it as 3. However, that is only if the player throws it at the basket. A defensive touch doesn't change that. However, if the player doesn't throw it at the basket, a defensive touch that redirects it to the basket doesn't make it a 3.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the player throws it to the basket and it goes in, we count it as 3. However, that is only if the player throws it at the basket. A defensive touch doesn't change that. However, if the player doesn't throw it at the basket, a defensive touch that redirects it to the basket doesn't make it a 3.

Nice citation Camron Rust. Thank you.

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)

4.41.4 B doesn't indicate where A2 or B1 may have been standing. I'm especially interested in knowing where B1 was standing, my citations below don't seem to care whether, or not, B1 was behind the arc, or not.

5-2 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.

5.2.1 SITUATION B: With 2:45 left in the second quarter, B1 has the ball on the left wing in Team B's frontcourt, standing behind the three-point arc. B5 makes a backdoor cut toward the basket. B1 passes the ball toward the ring and B5 leaps for the potential "alley-oop" dunk. The ball, however, enters and passes through the goal directly from B1's pass and is not touched by B5. RULING: Score three points for Team B. A ball that is thrown into a team's own goal from behind the three-point arc scores three points, regardless of whether the thrown ball was an actual try for goal.

5.2.1 SITUATION C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: (a) B1 who is in the three-point area; (b) B1 who is in the two-point area;[/COLOR][/B] (c) A2 who is in the three-point area; or (d) A2 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. RULING: In (a) and (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line. In (c), score three points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred behind the three-point line. In (d), score two points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred in the two-point area.

My three citations above refer to a "thrown ball", not necessarily a shot attempt, and not necessarily (in two of my three citations) thrown toward the basket.

I am certain that the rule in place when the three point line was first painted on the floor stipulated a shot, but that it was changed to any thrown ball (I also believe it wasn't necessary to be thrown toward the basket, but that's what we're debating here).

I couldn't sleep last night, so I did some research, the one and only time officials have to rule on whether or not a ball has a chance to go into basket is in regard to a try/goaltending.

Look forward to your reply and to getting this straightened out soon.

As usual, it's very likely that I'm wrong, or that the NFHS has made it difficult to show that I'm wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice citation Camron Rust. Thank you.

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)

4.41.4 B doesn't indicate where A2 or B1 may have been standing. I'm especially interested in knowing where B1 was standing, my citations below don't seem to care whether, or not, B1 was behind the arc, or not.

...

My three citations above refer to a "thrown ball", not necessarily a shot attempt, and not necessarily (in two of my three citations) thrown toward the basket.

I am certain that the rule in place when the three point line was first painted on the floor stipulated a shot, but that it was changed to any thrown ball (I also believe it wasn't necessary to be thrown toward the basket, but that's what we're debating here).

You have to go back to when the rule was changed. Originally, we had to judge try or not and award 3 or 2. This was on an uncomplicated throw. There was never a question about a ball thrown into the post or elsewhere (but not at the basket) that was deflected up and into the basket. It was always two.

Rather than judge intent, they changed the rule to judge based on observable actions....the ball was thrown from behind the arc and it goes it...all without complications. It is easily observable whether the thrower was throwing the ball at the basket or not....we don't have to determine why, just that it was throw there.

Now, introduce a defender trying to block the try/throw. That doesn't change anything. If the thrower is throwing the ball at the basket and a defender touches it, count it as 3. However, 4.41.4B tells us that when the throw (a try is just a throw with intent) is no longer on a trajectory to go in, it can no longer be a 3 if it is subsequently redirected to the basket.

The whole point of this rule, again, is to remove the need to judge intent. It was never meant to make something that was clearly not a shot into 3 points.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You have to go back to when the rule was changed. Originally, we had to judge try or not and award 3 or 2. This was on an uncomplicated throw. There was never a question about a ball thrown into the post or elsewhere (but not at the basket) that was deflected up and into the basket. It was always two.

Agree.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rather than judge intent, they changed the rule to judge based on observable actions....the ball was thrown from behind the arc and it goes it...all without complications. It is easily observable whether the thrower was throwing the ball at the basket or not....we don't have to determine why, just that it was throw there. The whole point of this rule, again, is to remove the need to judge intent. It was never meant to make something that was clearly not a shot into 3 points.

Disagree, and unfortunately, I wasn't keeping my old books from that era. I honestly don't remember any such mention of "observable actions" by the NFHS when the rule was changed.

Now, where are my car keys?

Other opinions please.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You have to go back to when the rule was changed. Originally, we had to judge try or not and award 3 or 2. This was on an uncomplicated throw. There was never a question about a ball thrown into the post or elsewhere (but not at the basket) that was deflected up and into the basket. It was always two.

Rather than judge intent, they changed the rule to judge based on observable actions....the ball was thrown from behind the arc and it goes it...all without complications. It is easily observable whether the thrower was throwing the ball at the basket or not....we don't have to determine why, just that it was throw there.

Now, introduce a defender trying to block the try/throw. That doesn't change anything. If the thrower is throwing the ball at the basket and a defender touches it, count it as 3. However, 4.41.4B tells us that when the throw (a try is just a throw with intent) is no longer on a trajectory to go in, it can no longer be a 3 if it is subsequently redirected to the basket.

The whole point of this rule, again, is to remove the need to judge intent. It was never meant to make something that was clearly not a shot into 3 points.

The rule was changed because of the prevalence of the "alley-oop" play. If the throw doesn't resemble that (even if another offensive player isn't there), or if the throw then ceases to have a (liberally interpreted) chance to enter the basket--for instance it falls below the height of the rim and hit a player in the shoulder, then just count two points.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice citation Camron Rust. Thank you.

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)

4.41.4 B doesn't indicate where A2 or B1 may have been standing. I'm especially interested in knowing where B1 was standing, my citations below don't seem to care whether, or not, B1 was behind the arc, or not.

....

That tells me the ball made it to an area near the basket.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

That tells me the ball made it to an area near the basket.

Which exactly why I was referring to the other two citations.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... not necessarily (in two of my three citations) thrown toward the basket.

The other two citations make no mention of toward the basket.

I agree with Camron Rust that the question here is in the intent of the rule when it was changed. We disagree on that aspect.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Which exactly why I was referring to the other two citations.



The other two citations make no mention of toward the basket.

I agree with Camron Rust that the question here is in the intent of the rule when it was changed. We disagree on that aspect.

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.

[BayStateRef]

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)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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)

Silly IAABO, wrong again.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Silly IAABO, wrong again.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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)

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Probably won’t get far citing editors. These case plays are not consistent ...

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