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

[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.