Two Points Or Three Points ...

[BillyMac]

I just viewed a video from the IAABO Inside The Lines Video Playbook. The video was a perfect match to 5.2.1.C.b, and correctly ruled as three points. In the video A1 "threw" the ball, 100% certain it was a pass and not a try (ball never got above "head" level until it was "deflected" by B1.

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: 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.

After studying the citations listed, I started to think about 5.2.1.C.c, legally touched by A2, a teammate of A1, who is located outside the behind the three-point line. Caseplay says three points.

So if A1, from behind the three-point line, throws a "pass" (100% certain it's a pass) to A2 who is also behind the three point line, and the ball "deflects" off the head of A2 continues in flight and goes through A's basket, it's three points?

While I'm very certain that this play will confuse more than a few coaches (possibly leading to a technical foul), I'm also a little afraid that it will also confuse a few officials.

[Raymond]

What confusion? You just cited the proper rulings?

Even if it is confusing, it has to happen first before that theory can be tested.

[bob jenkins]

Agreed. IT's unclear (to me) whether it was posted because BM thinks the case disagrees with the rule, thinks the rule should be changed, is worried about some coach's reaction to a 1-in-one-hyundred-million play, or just can't stand the silence.

I am a little concerned that it's been over 100 minutes since he posted and he hasn't yet replied to himself.

[JRutledge]

Without seeing the video not sure I can speak on the issue in the video. But the case plays are clear. If this happens please let me know, never seen it in all my years and likely not going to see it soon. But if you said it happen, we are in the video age to let us see it for ourselves.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

After studying the citations listed, I started to think about 5.2.1.C.c, legally touched by A2, a teammate of A1, who is located outside the behind the three-point line. Caseplay says three points.

So if A1, from behind the three-point line, throws a "pass" (100% certain it's a pass) to A2 who is also behind the three point line, and the ball "deflects" off the head of A2 continues in flight and goes through A's basket, it's three points?

While I'm very certain that this play will confuse more than a few coaches (possibly leading to a technical foul), I'm also a little afraid that it will also confuse a few officials.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... just can't stand the silence.

Yes.

Also, a reminder to both young'uns and old timers that this (deflects off of the teammate's head) is three points.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... thinks the rule should be changed ...

No, it's been a long time so I've learned to live with the "new" objective (non-subjective) rule.

But, I will admit, even though it was subjective, I kind of liked the old rule that it had to be a "try". After all, we get paid the big bucks to make subjective decisions all the time.

Plus, I don't see many alley-oop dunks in my middle school games.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes.

Also, a reminder to both young'uns and old timers that this (deflects off of the teammate's head) is three points.

Yes, a pressing issue that needed to be addressed.

I prefer youngins not concern themselves with these obscure, once in a century plays and focus on the fundamentals they are being taught.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I prefer youngins not concern themselves with these obscure, once in a century plays and focus on the fundamentals they are being taught.

In this case, this extremely obscure play can highlight the fundamental aspect of the rule, which for some, but not all, may make the rule fundamental easier to remember, and thus, easier to apply in all situations.

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.

Back when I was on the the rules training committee for rookies preparing to take the rules test, to highlight the one of the differences between basket interference and goaltending we often discussed possible basket interference or goaltending on a throw in.

I've never seen a possible basket interference or goaltending on a throw in in forty-plus years of officiating, nor have I seen it in all my years as a player and coach (beginning in the mid 1960's), but the discussion of such is a valuable tool for fundamental rule instruction.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In this case, this extremely obscure play can highlight the fundamental aspect of the rule, which for some, but not all, may make the rule fundamental easier to remember, and thus, easier to apply in all situations.

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.

Back when I was on the the rules training committee for rookies preparing to take the rules test, to highlight the one of the differences between basket interference and goaltending we often discussed possible basket interference or goaltending on a throw in.

I've never seen a possible basket interference or goaltending on a throw in in forty-plus years of officiating, nor have I seen it in all my years as a player and coach (beginning in the mid 1960's), but the discussion of such is a valuable tool for fundamental rule instruction.

My job now is to train. I use realistic and/or actual situations to reinforce fundamentals and I don't allow trainees or conversations with trainees to go down rabbit holes.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My job now is to train. I use realistic and/or actual situations to reinforce fundamentals and I don't allow trainees or conversations with trainees to go down rabbit holes.

For the sake of simplicity and time management, I can agree with Raymond. Some learners can be distracted, or even confused, by "odd" examples. Other could benefit. There are different philosophies of teaching, some teachers are more comfortable, and thus, possibly more successful with some philosophies rather than others. Teachers must know their audience (learners), be comfortable in their own style, and at the same time be willing to adjust one's style (philosophy) when necessary (students failing to learn).

I would never start out with the "hit in the head" example, but if learners were having difficulty with more "common" realistic or actual two point or three point play situations (alley-oop), I might bring it up for discussion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Yes, a pressing issue that needed to be addressed.

I prefer youngins not concern themselves with these obscure, once in a century plays and focus on the fundamentals they are being taught.

Years ago when I had not even started officiating a single game. All I had at the time was the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook for football.

Well, there was a long-time veteran that was running a local official's association meeting and spent about 30 or 40 minutes on a play that involved a dropkick and whether the situation was legal or not in the context of the play he was discussing. I sat there and my head was about to explode because I had no idea what he was talking about.

Well some 27 years later, I have yet to see that single play he was discussing. Never seen a dropkick in any game I have officiated. I think I saw it one time in an NFL game, and by then I knew the rule much better. But this was my first meeting as an official just trying to figure out how not to be scared out of my mind and this dude went on a rant about something that never happens and did it for the reasons he thought were being helpful. I almost talked myself out of doing this just at that meeting. I thought this is what I would have to do as an official and would never understand what was happening. And I played football all through high school and watched football all the time.

Sometimes veterans get in their own way worrying about things that never happened to show how clever they are with 3rd world plays that no one has seen.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've never seen a possible basket interference or goaltending on a throw in in forty-plus years of officiating, nor have I seen it in all my years as a player and coach (beginning in the mid 1960's), but the discussion of such is a valuable tool for fundamental rule instruction.

You cannot have goaltending on a throw-in, it is not a try by rule. And this is something I have never seen where BI is even possible either. I have seen an official at a State Final game call a violation because the throw-in hit the ring. Thank God they corrected that in the end. Learned the rule for sure watching a veteran who I respected make that big mistake.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot have goaltending on a throw-in, it is not a try by rule.

That's the rule fundamental that we wanted to stress. Not that one can't have goaltending on a throw-in. One can't, but it's not worth one memorizing it that way because one will never see it. But it is worth memorizing why one can't have goaltending on a throw-in, because it is not a try.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Learned the rule for sure watching a veteran who I respected make that big mistake.

Agree. Whether it's a once in a million "odd" call, or a once in a season "big" call, observing a colleague, of any experience level, making a right call, or a wrong call (mistake), will leave a lasting impression.

Many years ago, I was observing a high level veteran colleague officiate a state semifinal game. Jumper touched ball on the way up. He made the easy call, but then he did something that I, previous to that, would never think to do in a game, he checked the clock. Sure enough it had improperly started, so he had the clock reset to 8:00.

Not a big deal, had he not done that, I'm pretty sure that nobody would complain, but it was the correct call, so I put it in my pocket for the future, probably for "written test" purposes. When a jump ball goes wrong, sometimes one resets the clock (illegal touch on way up), and sometimes one doesn't (third illegal touch after two legal touches, jumper catches ball after legal touch). If the violation is before a legal touch, reset the clock if it improperly starts.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think I saw it one time in an NFL game ...

Doug Flutie, New England Patriots, Sunday, January 1, 2006:

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Whether it's a once in a million "odd" call, or a once in a season "big" call, observing a colleague, of any experience level, making a right call, or a wrong call (mistake), will leave a lasting impression.

Decades ago, I was observing one of our best officials (several state finals), also one of our best trainers, officiating a state tournament quarterfinal game. I was barely a full varsity official. He administers a sideline throwin, the inbound pass went across the basket line, across the court, untouched, but bouncing inbounds on the court before bouncing out of bounds. He allows his partner to administer the throwin to the non-inbounding team, but not at original spot, but across the court, actually pointing to the spot, and the direction, to his partner (who acquiesced to his much more senior and experienced partner).

After the game, I was invited into the locker room for the post game discussion and he asked me, "So, what did you see?". I asked if the cross court out of bounds on the inbound pass had touched a player on the court (expecting him to answer in the affirmative). He replied, "No, but it touched the court inbounds, and ... Wait a minute? I blew that call didn't I?".

Made a lasting impression on me, for many reasons. He invited me (barely a full varsity official) into the locker room for a both the halftime and post game discussion in a "big" game. He asked my (inexperienced) opinion about how the game went. He owned up to his mistake, a mistake that I will never knowingly make because of his mistake. Thanks Tony. Rest in peace.