The rules are stupid, at least in this scenario.

Well, are they? We do need to define a try or we would have a lot of contact being awarded shots that were never by definition a try. But also this is such a rare scenario anyway, it really matters little. I have never seen the play like this in the OP in one of my games. And other than this video not sure I have ever seen this before either. Not something we should be that worried about.

Peace

Had this happen a few years ago. Team A is running sideline break and A1 pitches it ahead to A2 (all outside the 3 pt line). B2 deflects the pass into A's basket. They raised hell we only called it a 2.

*I guess in an "alternate universe" they might've construed A1's pitch pass--as a "try for goal"; and the "tip" of said pass when ball was hit by B2 to be construed as a "partially blocked shot"--which ultimately went thru the hoop, ergo 3 points awarded?

Why do you think the rule is stupid? What change would you make so it's less stupid, in your view?

Stupid NFHS ...
 

How about some clarification for these two slightly confusing, seemingly somewhat inconsistent/incongruent interpretations (with their corresponding rules), allowing us to make confident adjudications.

And then some guidance as to how we can use this somewhat confusing interpretation and the corresponding rule (when a try is not a try but counts as a try) to confidently handle alley-oop "horns"; and alley-oop "goaltending".

And then follow that with a dash of clarification to allow us to confidently handle the rare as hen's teeth teammate deflection after an actual try, or alley-oop pass (both on the way up), all from behind the the three point arc, that ends up entering the basket.

Until I'm confident in understanding exactly what the NFHS wants us to do in all the situations discussed in this interesting and fun thread, I have absolutely no idea what to suggest regarding changes to the improve rule language.

Forum members are welcome to try. As my high school physical education teacher, Mr. Johnson, used to say after throwing a few basketballs out onto the gym floor, "Go at it guys".

How can you score 3 points on a throw that is not a try or tap for goal? If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of the 3-point line is to challenge shooters to attempt tries further from the basket. This means that only tries (or taps) from 3-point distance should be awarded 3 points. Why then do scenarios also exist in the rules that award 3 points for a ball thrown in the basket from 3-point distance that is not a try (I.e. a failed alley-oop pass that enters the basket)?

Clarification ...
 

The answer has already been posted:

Comments On The 2001-02 Revisions

Three point basket clarified. Three points shall be awarded for any ball thrown, passed, or shot from beyond the three point arc that passes through a team’s own basket. Where in most situations a try can be differentiated from a pass, to eliminate possible confusion this change should help to clarify by not requiring judgment as to whether the ball in flight was a pass or a try.

5.2.1 Situation: 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 back door cut toward the basket. B1 passes the bail 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 the goal from behind the three point arc in the frontcourt scores three points, regardless of whether the thrown ball was an actual try for goal.

For the first fifteen years after the the invention of the three point line, before the clarification, while not extremely common, there were a few odd alley-oop plays every season that had officials scratching their heads. The clarification took judgment out of the equation, allowing officials to be more confident in their calls.

At least, that's the bill of goods that we were sold back then.

Try That Wasn't Really A Try ...
 

While the clarification meant that officials didn't have to use judgment and differentiate between a pass and a try that later entered the basket to determine the points scored, this "try that wasn't really a try" didn't broach the idea of a goaltending-like touch, or a horn sounding before the ball entered the basket, situations that may still have (or not have) required officials to use judgment and differentiate between a pass and a try.

Stupid NFHS.

Not A Try, Still Counts As Two Points ...
 

Same thing with a throw in that ends up in the cylinder above the basket ring and is interfered with by the defense. It's not a try, but it's still counts as two points.

Note: Can't have goaltending under similar conditions, it's not a try. The inbounded ball can be in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, with the possibility of entering the basket, and an offensive player can legally grab it and dunk it, or a defensive player can legally swat it away.

That's what the rule used to be. It also had problems (aka "it was stupid.")

Adding more criteria (like calling it a "try") would introduce other problems.

:shrug:

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...njA0tUOaZD.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a three point goal.

In this play, three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown by A1 from behind the three-point line. 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. (Casebook 5.2.1 Situation C) For those of you who officiate at the collegiate level, this play would be scored as a 2-point goal in both NCAA men's and women's rules. NCAA Men - (A.R 113) NCAA Women - (A.R 128) It should be further noted that there is another scenario in the NFHS casebook that would be handled differently than what is outlined in the play above. 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) So in a case when it is obvious that a try was unsuccessful that gets deflected into the basket, under NFHS rules, it would be considered a 2-point goal.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a two point goal 75%. This is a three point goal 25% (including me).

Fish Or Cut Bait ...
 

I was very underwhelmed and disappointing by the IAABO International play commentary.

I've heard the IAABO International "Gang of Flour" co-interpreters speak either in person, or in videos, and they're all excellent, well qualified interpreters.

So why the "wishy-washy" answer?

Take a stand.

Their answer is just wrong...and they even give the reason that makes their own answer wrong. They reference 4.44.4b.

If the result is to be the same whether we regard it as a try or not a try and just a thrown ball, that means 4.41.4b, even though the situation references a try, must be the same if it is not a try...and it is 2 points.

Therefore, this play can't be a 3. To understand this play, you have to look for what is different between 4.41.4b and 5.2.1c that is not related to it being a try or not. The difference...in 4.41.4b the throw/try is short and obviously can't go in without a new bat by the defense. That is the fundamental difference and is why this is a 2.

Agreed. IAABO screwed up again and got this one wrong. They will probably issue a retraction and correction in a few days. Just sad.