Fun With Two Or Three Points ...

[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.