Erroneously Counting Or Canceling A Score ...
 

2-1-1-E: Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

In NFHS rules and mechanics, if officials don't signal a "touchdown" three then the field goal is assumed to be two points. No longer, as in ancient times, do officials have to signal one point (free throw) or two points (two point field goal).

2.7.8 - Signal for Point(s) During the course of the game, the officials: (a) do not signal successful two-point field goals or free throws; or (b) do signal the value of point(s) resulting from defensive goaltending or basket interference. RULING:*This is proper procedure. Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in cases of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded. Officials shall also continue to signal a successful three-point goal.

If, for whatever reason, officials don't signal a "touchdown" three for a successful shot from behind the three point arc, then this becomes a correctable error situation that falls under the usual constraints and time frame restrictions of the correctable error rule.

For example, ball is inbounded after the successful shot from behind the three point arc with no visual three point "touchdown" signal given, and officials, coaches, or table immediately question the number of points. This easily falls within the correctable error time frame restrictions, so it can be discussed, old trail says, "Yeah, I was distracted and forgot to give the "touchdown" signal", and it will be corrected to three points.

But, in the above situation, if officials, coaches, or table question the number of points after the correctable error time frame restrictions have passed, it's too late to correct and only two points are counted, even if the official says, "Yeah, I remember that, I was distracted and forgot to give the "touchdown" signal".

Still sounds like an opinion. Which is fine, but not the official position from the NF.

Peace

2.10.1j

Always Listen To bob ...
 

100% Sure ...
 

Exactly what part of my explanation was an opinion that you disagree with?

Extreme But Simple Situation ...
 

I can certainly understand why the officials in the original post were confused. We have debated NFHS situations here on the Forum for similar situations, for example, deflected "passes", and deflected "shots", off of either offensive or defensive players, some being deflected off of body parts that are not hands, including "shots" or "passes" that were originally going "sideways" (east-west), all these being complex, and sometimes confusing, situations.

So let's look at an extreme situation, but we'll keep it as simple as possible. One important thing to remember is that the NFHS no longer requires a three point "basket" to be a try.

NFHS rules. First let's set it up. Ninety-four foot court, in a "stadium" setting with an extremely high ceiling, highest ceiling on the planet. Middle of a period so the clock and buzzer don't complicate matters in any possible manner.

A1 from deep in his backcourt, "throws" the ball forward, long, far, and very high. Ball hits the floor in the frontcourt six inches behind the three point arc, bounces off the floor and enters the basket, untouched by anybody.

Again, remember that the NFHS no longer requires a three point "basket" to be a try.

Discuss.

Three pointer. If the ball had bounced inside the arc it would be two points.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Team 1 2 F
PSU 29 33 62
USU 42 39 81
Game Details
DATE
12/21/21
TIME
7:00 PM
ATTENDANCE
6945
SITE
Dee Glen Smith Spectrum, Logan, UT
REFEREES
Randy Richardson, Randy Heimerman, D.G. Nelson

Not correct and it doesn't matter where it bounces...

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)

Whether it is a try or not a try, we are to treat it the same....we are not expected to attempt to determine the thrower's attempt. This case establishes that when a try (or thrown ball) is obviously short and drops below the level of the ring, the opportunity to score 3 points is over.

I swear I read that somewhere

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Short ...
 

Nice citation.

"Short and below the ring" implies (can't be certain) that it hits a shoulder inside the three point arc.

What if the shoulder was simply below the ring but outside the three point arc?

Is the most important part of the interpretation that the "try ended"?

If so, hasn't the NFHS already decided that it doesn't have to be a try for it to be three points?

Is there a similar interpretation about a pass that "ended"?

Does the NFHS only limit three points to passes, trys, and deflected (blocked) trys, and not to deflections off of other body parts, or bounces off the floor?

Wouldn't it be nice if they stated that somewhere?

Aren't many deflections (blocks) below ring level?

Don't "deflectors (blockers)" often have inside the three point arc status.

Can a try be "deflected (blocked)" with a body part other than hand? Wrist? Forearm? Elbow? Upper arm? Shoulder? Head?

What's the most important part (purpose and intent) of Camron Rust's interpretation?

Lots of questions from me, with no definite answers for some questions.

I sometimes wish that the NFHS continued to limit three points to trys, as they did in ancient times.

Purpose And Intent ...
 

Seriously, this was not a rhetorical question.

I would really like to know, if at all possible.

I've actually had this question on my mind since the NFHS went from the ancient rule to the modern rule.

When the rule was first changed, I was actually pleased about the change, no longer having to differentiate between an alley oop pass and a try, but as I began deep diving into the rules, I became frustrated with the various (probably) unintended ramifications of the change.

https://tse2.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=300&h=300

The NCAA interp is that if the ball had a chance (interpret this loosely) to enter the basket, then treat it as a try (for scoring purposes). If the ball had no chance (had gone from above to below the level of the basket, was in a direction away from the basket) then treat it not as a try and score two points.

I'd treat FED the same.

I think that answers most of the questions.

Purpose And Intent Language ...
 

Thanks bob jenkins. Great purpose and intent layman's language explanation. I wish the NFHS would use similar language. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to explain it to me. Merry Christmas.

I agree....the whole point of the rule change was that if a ball is thrown to the basket and you can't tell if it a try or pass, count it as if it were a try if it goes in. When there is no doubt about what it was...it's not going to the basket, much less going in, without someone else changing the direction so that it goes in, it is simply a live ball that got deflected into the basket, no different than it was prior to that rule change. Everyone understood that at the time. Now, people want to re-disect the rule to come up with silly outcomes that were never the intent.