Fun With Two Or Three Points ...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The rules are stupid, at least in this scenario.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why do you think the rule is stupid?

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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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; (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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

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".

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What change would you make so it's less stupid, in your view?

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".

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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)?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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)?

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: