Correctable Error: 3pt FGA: Utah State vs Portland State Men's Game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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)

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... 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.

Another great purpose and intent explanation, mix this together with bob jenkin's explanation, add a pinch of salt, and one has a pretty good basis to make interpretations regarding such situations.

However, for the tens of thousands of officials who weren't the "everyone" around to remember somebody painting the first arcs on gymnasium floors, and then the subsequent alley oop rule change, it would be nice if the NFHS could somehow codify purpose and intent, with rule language changes, and casebook interpretations (please, no annual interpretations, or points of emphasis).

Also, was it simply an alley oop change, or were there also changes regarding the ball touching a defensive player who was inside the arc, as in a deflected (blocked) "throw"? And, of course the alley oop change also complicated the interpretation of goaltending.

Again, I sometimes wish that the NFHS continued to limit three points to trys.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride,
If turnips were swords I’d have one by my side.
If ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ were pots and pans
There would be no need for tinker’s hands!
(Scottish nursery rhyme)

[BillyMac]

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 A: A1 attempts a three-point goal. B1 slaps the ball: (a) while it is in downward flight outside the cylinder, but above the ring level; or (b) while it is in the cylinder after bouncing off the ring. RULING: It is defensive goaltending in (a) and defensive basket interference in (b). Three points are awarded in both cases as a result of the violation. (9-11, 12)

5.2.1 SITUATION B: 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 backdoor cut toward the basket. B1 passes the ball 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 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.

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.

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)