Fun With Two Or Three Points ...

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I have been, and still am, a firm believer that very specific caseplays, and very specific interpretations, "trump" generic rule citations (added bonus: caseplays, and interpretations, are very easy for coaches (and officials) to understand), especially generic rule citations that do not take into account all possible situational outcomes.

Ambiguous problems discussed in this thread can all be traced back to this rule citation below, a rule citation (that doesn't mention a defensive player) that, without any further caseplay ruling, or interpretation ruling, cannot lead to a ruling other than three points.

5-2-1: 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.

So we got two somewhat conflicting specific caseplays/interpretations, caseplays/interpretations that could probably be better written to explain why each situation is different, and one generic non-specific rule.

By better written, I mean better written as explained by Camron Rust:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

And further explained by Nevadaref:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Situation #1: The thrown ball has a chance to enter the basket without anything else occurring. Situation #2: The thrown ball does not have any chance of entering the goal without some other contact occurring.

Maybe things were better back in ancient times when officials had to differentiate between a (three point) try and a pass?

Officials had to, and still have to, differentiate between a try and "not a try" for goaltending rulings, or buzzer rulings, as well as "in the act" rulings (that may, or may not, even involve a two point, or three point, option).

All officials know how to do it, and we can all do it when necessary.

Did we really need the 2001-02 (three point "pass") clarification?

I really liked JRutledge's extreme situation:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... So if I throw the ball to the sideline and the ball hits (a teammate or a defender) and goes (into) to the basket and everyone was behind the 3-point line ...

Use the actual generic rule: three points. Use one caseplay/interpretation: three points. Use another caseplay/interpretation: two points. Use intent and purpose: probably two points.

Passes that go in. Tries that go in. Deflections that go in. Blocked shots that go in. Throwins that go in. Off defenders. Off teammates. Two points. Three points. Goaltending. Buzzer beaters.

Maybe we need a rule change, not a clarification, and not conflicting somewhat poorly worded (not fully explained) caseplays/interpretations.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe we need a rule change, not a clarification, and not conflicting somewhat poorly worded (not fully explained) caseplays/interpretations.

Point of Emphasis?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe things were better back in ancient times when officials had to differentiate between a (three point) try and a pass?

I know that we can't, but too bad we can't go back to a simpler time when there was no three point arc, when a try was a try, a pass was a pass, when all the women were strong, all the men were good-looking, and all the children were above average.

You can't go home again. (Thomas Wolfe)