Fun With Two Or Three Points ...
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

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

Does this get scored 2 or 3 points? Observe the play and make a determination as to whether this should be ruled a two point or a three point goal. Give rules support for your answer.

Two choices: This is a three point goal. This is a two point goal.

My comment: This is a three point goal. Three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line. 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.

Citation ...
 

NOT a TRY
 

This was NEVER a Try. The 'Pass' was never above the rim until it was deflected by a defender. Thus ONLY 2 Points.

Don't confuse this with a lob pass (Ally-Oop), from behind the 3-point line, towards the rim that goes untouched into the basket. Even though the intent was a lob pass it is deemed a try, thus 3-points

Counterpoint ...
 

Maybe thirty years ago when, initially, the three points had to come from a legal try, but the rule was changed after that due to infamous and controversial alley-oop passes.

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.

In this video, the ball touched none of these, rather the ball touched a defensive player, no different (except one's a try, and the other is a pass) than a defender who is standing inside the arc deflecting (blocking) a try (or any thrown ball) from behind the arc.

Do not confuse this situation with the similar one where the horn sounds before the deflected passed ball (initially with no chance to go in) enters the basket, not a try, don't count it, not even for two points.

5.2.1 Situation C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: (b) B1 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. RULING: In (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line.

This is a two-point basket. It was never the intent of the rule IMO. This was clearly not even an attempt to put the ball at the basket. I get what the interpretation might suggest if you take it completely out of context, but this to me just one of these times when they cannot cover all situations perfectly.

Peace

Billy's right.

Like it or not, by rule this is a 3-point basket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What is the intent and purpose of the rule? That is the answer.

Peace

The word throw is in the damned rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Good Old Days ...
 

Initially, JRutledge would be correct.

But that was over thirty years go, back when Whitney Houston's "How Will I Know" was a big hit, but interpretations have changed over that length of time, and Miss Houston is no longer with us.

Read the rule, read the casebook play.

I did read the rule and the casebook. And I was around when this interpretation changed. It was always meant for an alley-opp kind of pass that happened to go in the basket. Just like I asked the NCAA Editor about their backcourt rule and the casebook and all interpretations said a play that happened in the WVU-Gonzaga game early in the season. And it took me (I am sure someone else contacted them but they did respond) to realize that the rule they had written did not cover a situation that happened in that game. Even Art Hyland told me this in an email and said that the intent and purpose of the rule was to not cover a situation where the ball is deflected in the backcourt when the rule says only the frontcourt the rule applies.


Only #1 Play.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vZqw8lV1gm4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

According to the NCAA Rule, is a backcourt violation because there is no mention of a deflection from the backcourt that results in touch to the frontcourt. But after further review, the Rules Editor had to realize that they did not think of every possible situation and put something out to make clear that this should not be a violation. I feel like the very same thing is happening in this video you posted Billy. The ball was not going anywhere near the basket and was clearly altered to go up to the basket.

It really does not matter, because this is not a common thing. But I am not giving 3 points if I am the ruling official.

Peace

I understand all of that, but what was the intent of the rule when they changed this? What were the examples they gave?

Peace

Off topic much, Rut?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm giving an analogy. And I think it applies here. The problem is the NF does not have one voice on many of these things and often sends us to our state to give an interpretation.

And you never seem to worry about other conversations where things are way off topic. So why worry about my position now?

Peace

No way I am awarding 3 points on this play. First, as JRut says, that is not the intent of the rule. Second, I will use the following contradictory case play if the coach insists this should count as 3 points.

A1's three-point try is short and below the ring level when it hits the shoulder of 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.

Dueling Citations ...
 

Nice citation johnny d. Thanks.

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)

However:

5.2.1 Situation C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: (b) B1 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. RULING: In (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line.

And we have this rule citation:

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.

Nothing about a defender inside the arc.

This situation is no longer as cut and dry as I originally believed.

Can we all agree that, unlike the original rule from thirty years ago, a three point basket no longer has to be a legal try, but could be a pass?

Case 4.41.4 is the applicable case play....2 points. The ball was short and any throw that could have been considered 3 was over. A new action by the defender batted the ball (not merely touched it in flight) into a basket for 2 points.

Nope, he’s dead wrong and so are you.
The different case play in which the thrown ball is well below the level of the ring and strikes a defender’s shoulder then bounces up and into the goal is the proper citation. That ruling is a two-point goal.
As Rut writes, the action shown in the video is not what is intended by or under the purview of the rule and/or case play cited by Billy.

Not the first time I was wrong. At least someone found a case play.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Back To The Future ...
 

Yes but this is not going anywhere near the basket. So unless we have a doubt, then to me this should only be a 2 in the video.

Again, what is the intent of the rule? What were they trying to clear up by making this ruling from previously saying no matter what it was a 2 if the officials deem the "throw" to be only a pass?

This to me is not the intent or the kind of situation that the interpretation was cleared up for. But again if there is not clarity, the NF often asks for states to make their ruling and this might be one of these cases I might just ask for opinions in my area.

Peace

Intent ...
 

I think that I figured out the intent of the rule/case play I cited.

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.

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.

5-2-1 and 5.2.1 Situation C both allow a try from behind the three point arc to be deflected/blocked by a defender inside the three point arc and yet still count as three points. That's why the rule lists a ball that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, and an official as subsequently counting two points, but doesn't list a defender inside the arc, written to allow such a deflected/blocked shot to count as three points.

johnny d's citation appears to be the "gold standard" in this situation.

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)

Thanks guys. The title of this thread was "Fun With Two Or Three Points" and not only was it fun, it was also educational.

Words Matter ...
 

Frontcourt? Really? Only two points from the backcourt? It always annoys me when the NFHS is recklessly foot loose and fancy free with its language. Not a big deal here (probably written to account for wrong way baskets), but just another reminder of their poor editing skills.

Floor, Official ...
 

Just to be clear, only two points if the ball touches the floor, or an official, inside, or outside the arc. Right?

Just For Fun ...
 

Center A2, the tallest player in the league, sets a ball screen for point guard A1, the shortest player in the league. Both A1 and A2 are outside the three point arc. Because of the great screen, A1 finds himself undefended for a split second and attempts a three point try, however, after A1 releases the try, the ball (on the way up) strikes A2 in the head. The ball awkwardly ricochets high into the air, and subsequently passes through the basket.

Two points, or three points? Is this like the alley-oop pass? And remember, the teammate, A2, is outside (not inside) the arc.

Easy extra credit: Same thing, but horn to end period sounds after the ball ricochets off A2's head, but before the ball enters the basket?

If the ball hit the head of A2 and he was clearly not anywhere near the basket then I believe it should be ruled a 2.

The basket on the extra credit would not count because the try was over when it hit A2 on top of the head. Clearly, they are not shooting the ball or the shot is over at that point.

Peace

Pondering ...
 

Agree.

4-41-4: The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead.

Won't agree, or disagree with you. I didn't have a prepared answer. I need to ponder it a while more.

Not sure what being "near the basket" has to do with the situation? To be clear, while A2 was not anywhere near the basket, neither was A1, they were both outside the three point arc. The disparity in the heights of both players and the closeness of shooter A1 to his screener, put screener A2's head in the way of the "normal" upward trajectory of A1's three point attempt.

While we allow a successful three point try, and a successful three point pass (alley-oop), do we allow a "successful" three point defection?

Did you say "awkwardly ricochets" into the basket? So I am assuming that that means that the shot or the ball is nowhere near the basket or has a chance to go in otherwise. At some level, we have to judge if the ball is going to the basket just like the other play originally. It is not explicit in the caseplays you posted, but there is something like that in other rules. So if I throw the ball to the sideline and the ball hit me and goes over to the basket and everyone was behind the 3-point line, you giving 3 points? Not sure I agree with that either.

Peace

Trajectory ...
 

While the original trajectory from A1 was "normal" and had a good chance to go in, the awkward ricochet from A2 was also "normal" enough to have a good chance of going in, demonstrated by the fact that it did, indeed, go in. There isn't only one single trajectory that works, there can be multiple successful trajectories from one launch spot (line drive versus arching shot), and certainly from two different launch spots.

Great example. I'm a big fan of extreme examples to test ideas.

I honestly don't know the answer. I'm not even "leaning" one way.

Again, while we allow a successful three point try, and a successful three point pass (alley-oop), do we allow a "successful" three point (everybody behind the arc) defection?

Has The Possibility Of Entering The Basket ...
 

Like the goaltending rule?

Goaltending is when a player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and has the possibility of entering the basket.

Which begs the question, can an alley-oop pass from behind the three-point line (as we've discussed in this thread) that is on it's downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and having the possibility of entering the basket, be legally touched by a player?

Yes it can, it's not a try, even though it's been "kind of" treated as such since 2001-02 (remember Destiny's Child's "Bootylicious"?).

Below The Ring Level ...
 

Maybe the important factor is if the ball is below (or above) the ring level when it touches (deflects off of) another player (offensive or defensive)?

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)

In 4.41.4 Situation B the ball is on the way down (try is short). In my silly scenario, the ball is on the way up.

Screener A2's head was definitely below the ring.

Grasping at straws here, straws to support any answer, either way.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.U...=0&w=301&h=170

Possible ???
 

If we're not counting anything if the horn sounds before the ball enters the basket, then is it possible that we shouldn't score three points (just two) on the defection (everybody behind the arc) that enters the basket before the horn sounds?

Or do they not have anything to do with each other?

Riddle Me This ...
 

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.

What's the call? It's a pass, not a try, but do we treat it as a "Bootylicious" try?

This is a 3-point try, even though it was not intended to be such. It is a ball thrown towards the goal with a chance of scoring in flight, so by rule it is a try, and since it was launched behind the 3-point line, and not touched by anyone, 3 points score.

Treated As A Try ...
 

No it isn't. It's a pass (it says as such in the interpretation that I slightly modified). It's just treated as a try for the purpose of determining two or three points (not requiring judgment as to whether the ball in flight was a pass or a try).

This is a real rule language try. 4-41-2: A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal.

It doesn't say that a try is an attempt to pass the ball to a teammate. Attempting to throw for goal is not the same as attempting to pass the ball to a teammate.

I also believe (by purpose and intent) that this same 2001-02 clarification allows us to treat a last second ally-oop pass (as we've been discussing) the enters the basket untouched after the horn sounds to count, in this case, as three points.

But that is just my humble opinion.

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

Impressive ...
 

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/

Clarification ...
 

... by rule clarification.

Personal Opinion ...
 

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.

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).

No, by rule this is not a try. A try has a specific definition and this is not it. It does count for 3 points but not because the rules say it is a try.

Alley-Oop (The Beach Boys, 1965) ...
 

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.

http://aoghs.org/wp-content/uploads/...HS-300x234.jpg

Why does it count for three points then, if it is not a try? It is an attempt to score, from behind the 3 point line.

As Camron stated, a try has a specific definition. When the defense shoots into the wrong basket, it is not a try by definition, but it still counts as 2 points.

If a player throws a baseball pass and is fouled, the ball is dead immediately and if it goes through the basket it does not count as a goal. If a player attempts a try and is fouled, the ball is not dead, and if it goes through the basket it counts as a goal.

Why? Because the rule says so. It does not say it is a try. It just says it counts as 3 points whether it was an attempt to score (a try) or not an attempt to score. If they wanted to be be a try, the rule would have defined it as such.

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.

He Who Hesitates Is Lost (Edgar Rice Burroughs) ...
 

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).

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.

Rule Citation ...
 

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:

And further explained by Nevadaref:

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:

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.

Don't Shoot The Messenger ...
 

Point of Emphasis?

Misty Water-Colored Memories ...
 

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)


https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.w...=0&w=217&h=164

Odd Situation ...
 

Three points.

Not an alley oop pass. Not a deflection off of a defensive player.

4-41-2: A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal.

4-41-4: The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor, or when the ball becomes dead.

The deflection by A2 does not end the try.

Still three points.

5.2.1 SITUATION C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: A2 who is in the three-point area; The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. RULING: ... score three points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred behind the three-point line.