Fun With Two Or Three Points ...

[ilyazhito]

Can there be goaltending on this thrown ball? If I recall correctly, if this thrown ball was knocked down above the height of the basket, on its downward flight, and with a chance to score, then goaltending could be called. Since goaltending can only be called on tries, this alley-oop that did not connect would be considered a try by rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Can there be goaltending on this thrown ball? If I recall correctly, if this thrown ball was knocked down above the height of the basket, on its downward flight, and with a chance to score, then goaltending could be called. Since goaltending can only be called on tries, this alley-oop that did not connect would be considered a try by rule.

If you deem the throw ball is a "pass" then the answer is no. If you deem this is a shot like Dereck Whittenburg and it falls short and Lorenzo Charles puts it back in, you could I guess. But that play the shot was going to be short and it would not have been GT at all IMO.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... a shot like Dereck Whittenburg and it falls short and Lorenzo Charles puts it back in ...

Wow. Great memory. Almost forty years ago. I still remember watching it on television, maybe my first color television.

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ot-was-a-pass/

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... this alley-oop that did not connect would be considered a try by rule.

... by rule clarification.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Can there be goaltending on this thrown ball?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

With 0:04 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 ball toward the ring and B5 leaps for the potential alley-oop dunk. The horn to end the period sounds before the ball enters and passes through the goal directly from B1’s pass and is not touched by B5.

In my opinion, the 2001-02 rule clarification suggests that one can count the (passed into the basket) basket after the horn sounds, count it as three points, and call goaltending if it occurs.

Just my personal opinion. My mind can be easily changed.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Can there be goaltending on this thrown ball?

You can't have GT on a pass. You can have BI on a pass.

We have talked before about the discrepancy in the "alley oop" play -- if the horn goes off, no basket (because it's not a try); if it goes through the basket, 3-points (as if it were a try).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In my opinion, the 2001-02 rule clarification suggests that one can count the (passed into the basket) basket after the horn sounds, count it as three points, and call goaltending if it occurs. Just my personal opinion. My mind can be easily changed.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We have talked before about the discrepancy in the "alley oop" play -- if the horn goes off, no basket (because it's not a try); if it goes through the basket, 3-points (as if it were a try).

Since we should always listen to bob, with the exception that I was wrong in my initial commentary on the IAABO video (two, not three, points off accidental defensive deflection), I now have no closure (that I thought I had) on alley-oop "horns" and alley-oop "goaltending"; as well as an unanswered question regarding an offensive deflection with everybody behind the arc.

[BillyMac]

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).

[BillyMac]

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There answer is just wrong...

How can both answers that they gave be correct? It's either two points, or three points. It can't be one, or the other, depending on which way the wind is blowing that day.

Watch the video. Make a damn call. And then let IAABO members go at it, hash it out, and debate it.

The IAABO International "Gang of Flour" co-interpreters' lack of confidence and conviction is unsettling to say the least.

Swift and resolute action leads to success; self-doubt is a prelude to disaster (English essayist and poet Joseph Addison).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How can both answers that they gave be correct? It's either two points, or three points. It can't be one, or the other, depending on which way the wind is blowing that day.

Watch the video. Make a damn call. And then let IAABO members go at it and debate it.

Their lack of confidence and conviction is unsettling to say the least.

Swift and resolute action leads to success; self-doubt is a prelude to disaster (English essayist and poet Joseph Addison).

There are two situations and two corresponding play rulings under NFHS rules.
Situation #1: A ball is thrown from behind the three-point line by a Team A player. The thrown ball has a chance to enter the basket without anything else occurring. The ball is touched by a defender who is either inside or outside the three-point line amd subsequently enters the basket. Ruling and Case Play: This is worth three points and 5.2.1 Situation C is the proper interpretation to apply.

Situation #2: A ball is thrown from behind the three-point line by a Team A player. The thrown ball does not have any chance of entering the goal without some other contact occurring. The ball is deflected by a defending player from Team B who is either inside or outside of the three-point line and subsequently enters the basket. Ruling and Case Play: This is a two-point goal and the proper interpretation to apply is 4.41.4 Situation B.

Unfortunately, IAABO applied the wrong case play ruling to the pass shown in the video clip, which clearly has no chance of entering the basket on its own. This leads to the wrong conclusion.