NF - Books at home (man I gotta put em in the car!)

Play: Player A1 lobs a long pass from midcourt to A2 going to the basket. The pass was overthrown and close to the basket. In (A) B2 guarding A2 inside the 3pt arc swats at the ball and tips the ball into the basket! In (B) B2 ttouches the ball standing outside the 3pt arc. In both cases, the ball is legally touched (ie no Goal tend or BI)

How many points for A?

Please cite rule or casebook.

Larks
VIT

Don't have my books with me, but it's come up here before.

B touching the ball does not change the value of the shot. If A shoots from beyond the Arc, count 3 points.

The way that I read this, you have a long lob which implies to me that it was above the rim. It then comes down and is touched legally - no BI/goaltending is what you said. In that case, even though you would originally construe A's throw as a shot, the attempt ends when the ball comes below the rim.

B's touching is not an atempt, therefore both of your scenarios result in a two-point basket.

FED4-40-4 Try ends when offical is certain that it is unsucessful. If you the official deem that the try will be no good then the swat by B causing the ball to go in is two points for A. If there is thought that the try might be sucessful then goaltend on B. Two or three points depending upon where the try was released. However, (I think we had a heated dic. on this last year)the way I read this specific case, when the ball was released it was never intended to be a try. In that case score two points for A even if the ball goes through the hoop w/ no one touching it no matter where the "pass" is released. 4-40-2 defines what is and what is not a try.

Not true, a pass from beyond the arc is three if it goes in, even if you are 100% sure it was a pass.

wsohl
The issue here is not pass vs shot - a pass from behind the arc is treated as a shot if it goes in. A shot or a pass that is legally deflected by B and then goes in the basket is a basket, and counts for the points it would have scored had it gone in from the initial shot without a touch by B. That is clear. So if B deflected A's attempted pass on it's way up, then the pass went in the goal, this play would be worth the 3 points A would have gotten had B never touched it.

If B touches A's pass on the way down but ball is still above the rim, the question is one of whether or not this constitutes goal tending. If it does constitue goaltending, you have three points for A. If it does not, then you have ruled that A's try had no chance to go in, and by rule the try ended. The basket is then due to B's tap, and that is worth 2 points only regardless of where it occurred on the court.

A shot or a pass (considered by rule to be a try) is no longer a try when it goes below the rim because it cannot go in the basket. Then any touching by B caused the inadvertent basket. B cannot have a try on goal, so B's touching in this circumstance results in two points.

I was refering to the last sentence of MN 3 Sport Ref's post.

wsohl - sorry - that's what happens when you read a little too quickly and don't catch the connections. Your response to mn is correct, as you surely know.

Score 3 points in both cases. See 5-2-1.

Disagree. Score 2 points in both cases. See 4.40.4SitB.

Jurassic,

Are you sure? That is not the way I read 5.2.1 when the defense legally touches the "lob".

Mulk

I'm with Chuck. The play is like 5.2.1 SitC the way I understand it. The ball is up near the basket, and B2 legally touches it for 3 points. In 4.40.4 SitB, the play involves a ball that has fallen below the ring level and B2 did not legally touch it (it bounced off the shoulder), thus the 2 points. Falling below the ring level or not is how I would determine the score of this play (2 or 3).

Have a nap, then check 5.2.1 Situation C. I think you'll change your mind ;)

Had my nap. Still disagree. 5.2.1SitC has to presume that the ball is still on the way up when it is legally touched. In the sitch posted,the ball was thrown from mid-court- which is the 42' mark in a high school gym. It's now legally touched just outside or inside the 3 point line- at least 21 feet away. Unless Wilt's come back to life, I can't think of a realistic scenario where a defender could possibly touch the ball legally on the way up after it has travelled that far. I'll go with Hawks Coach's answer above- shot ended with the touching because it had no chance to go in.That's the premise of 4.40.4SitB, which I think is applicable in this case.

Please cite a rule to me that states B2 has illegally touched the ball when it bounces off his shoulder. Are you gonna call B2 for GT for this "illegal" touching?

3 pts in sit A, no points in sit B unless the ball goes in. :D In that case I'd give them 3 points too.

Mregor

JR, here's the original play again. . .
In (A), the pass was touched near the basket. The pass was way overthrown and reached the basket. It wasn't touched near the 3-point arc. A2 is cutting to the basket for an "alley-oop", but B2 gets there first. So your interpretation of the play is off. It's just an accidental alley-oop play. Score 3 points.

In (B), I can see your point, but I was envisioning that B2 touched the ball as it was leaving A1's hands, trying to defend the long pass. Although now that I see what you're thinking, I can see that you might be reading better than I am, since B2 is probably not guarding A1.

But either way you read it, 5.2.1 says that any thrown ball that starts outside the 3-point arc and goes in the basket counts for 3 points, as long as it doesn't touch the floor, an official, or a teammate of the thrower.

As ugly as it sounds, by rule I think situation (B) is a 3 point goal.

JR, here's the original play again. . .
In (A), the pass was touched near the basket. The pass was way overthrown and reached the basket. It wasn't touched near the 3-point arc. A2 is cutting to the basket for an "alley-oop", but B2 gets there first. So your interpretation of the play is off. It's just an accidental alley-oop play. Score 3 points.

[/B][/QUOTE]Chuck,I can see your point also,but.....

In both cases,you've got a defender and an offensive player on the floor at least 20 feet away from where the pass originated.How do you know that this was an "alley-oop" and the ball was still above the rim? Personally, I can't envision an "alley-oop" pass from 20 feet away that could still be on the way up. It has to still be on the way up, because the ball was <b>legally</b> touched by the defender.

Note that you can "legally" touch an alley-oop pass on the way down only if the pass does <b>not</b> have a chance to go in- i.e. it's then definitely <b>not</b> a shot. If it's not a shot, it always has to be a 2.

JR, maybe the is the source of our disagreement. Your statement above is simply not true. Read 5-2-1 again: "A successful try, tap or thrown ball that does not touch the floor, a teammate or oficial, from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch line counts three points." Emphasis mine, obviously.

Any thrown ball that starts out behind the 3-point arc counts for three if it goes in, as long as it doesn't touch the floor, an offical or a teammate of the thrower. Then read the case play that goes along with it, 5.2.1 Situation C. It has four different scenarios, so I'm going to edit it down a little.

"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 or (b) B1 who is in the two-point area. 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."

The same point is made is the previous situation.

Situation B: "B1 has the ball. . . in Team B's frontcourt, standing behind the three-point arc. B5 makes a backdoor cut toward the basket. B1 passes theball 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 bal 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." Again, emphasis mine.

And you better agree with me now, b/c I had to type all that in!! I don't have Tony's fancy cut-and-paste capability. :D

Used the wrong verbiage. Shoulda said something like "it has to be a 2 because the shot/try/throw etc. has ended because it was certain the shot/try/tap etc. would be unsuccessful. Rule 4-40-4. If an alley-oop pass is on the way down, the only way that it can be legally touched is if the shot doesn't have a chance to go in. If it doesn't have a chance to go in, then that touching <b>ends</b> the shot.That fits the language of R4-40-4, and also case book play 4.40.4SitB.

If someone throws an alley-oop pass from 20 ft. away that is still on the way up when a defender legally touches it, well...I wanna see the films!

You have 10 minutes to respond before I have go to eat my carrot and celery sticks, have my noon hour walk with my grand daughter, and lay down for my afternoon nappy. :D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 5th, 2003 at 10:43 AM]

Chuck
We all agree that the situations you cite are 3 points. The second situation is most clearly stated, and involves no touching by B, a basically renders a pass a try when it goes in and eliminates the need for you to judge intent. The first situation is the problematic one. As JR and I read this case, we have a pass from behind the arc deflected on its way up, and then it goes in the goal. That's the essence of the legal touch in this case, IMO. I will readily agree that it is not clearly stated either way in the case. But the logic remains - ball thrown or shot from outside line, B deflects or partially blocks, ball goes in goal, count it as three points. The object of this case is to show that you don't reduce the value of a partially blocked shot when B is inside the arc, not to say that the ball can be below the rim and deflected back up and still count.

We treat any ball thrown by A as a try if it goes in, but you would not logically redefine when a try ends, which is addressed elsewhere in the rules. If that was the intent, you would never have a try end until either the ball hit the floor, or A touches the ball. the rules clearly do not say that. Imagine a bad 3 point shot that goes backboard, rim, and careens off. There is a fight for the rebound, and B jumps abvove everyone and taps the ball back to the basket. The literal deconstruction of the case as you have it would count this as three points. I am sure that is not the intent of this rule.

But that should be irrelevant, JR. The fact that it's no longer a try does nothing to change the fact that it's still a thrown ball. And ANY thrown ball that starts out behind the arc and goes in is supposed to be 3 points unless touched by a teammate, the floor, or an official. That's what 5-2-1 says. Any thrown ball is 3 points if it starts out behind the arc.

However, 4.40.4B seems to say that's not true. You have a shot that falls short, bounces off an opponent and goes in, but it's only worth two. That's a thrown ball that started out behind the 3-point arc and went in without touching a teammate, the floor or an official. So what gives?

4.40.4B makes total sense. But it contradicts 5-2-1. Hmmmmm.

I'm honestly confused. Hope you enjoyed the walk.

I think that we had a long thread almost similar to this one a few months ago. It centered on the same language differences. Maybe this one will show up as a case book play next year- because I can see your rationale also from the rule that you cited. Seems like our better threads usually happen to come to the attention of someone on the rules committee.

I enjoyed the walk one helluva lot more than I enjoyed those damn carrot and celery sticks!

As for your "honestly confused" remark, in the interest of off-season <i>detente</i>, I think that we'll let that one go. Can't speak for Dan, though. :D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 5th, 2003 at 11:32 AM]

I did a lot of research after my game last nighton this as there seems to be som contradicting statements in the FED books. Consider everything being released beyond the 3-point arc. It seems to me the key is the offical needs to determine if the thrown ball wheter it is a try or not has a chance of entering the basket. If it does and is not touched by the defense it is 3 points regardless 5.2.1 and 5.2.1B in casebook. If the thrown ball is touched by A or B in its downward flight, above the goal w/ the possibility of entering the basket we have goaltending.(4-22) However it is not that easy. For goaltending to occur the airborne ball must be a try. When an ally-oop occurs and the offensive player catches the ball and dunks it have you ever seen goaltending called or if the defense intercepts it? This ball as we have previously discussed is "close to" the basket and still has the possibility of going in. Here is the first of the contradicting language. The pass for alley-oop is clearly not a try then but we award 3 points if it goes into the hoop touched by B as clearly described in 5.2.1 It is obviously 2 if touched by a team A player (completed alley oop) This is understanding that the ball still had a chance of going in the hoop. Again officials judgement.

However in casebook4.40.4 the ball isclearly decribed (in the officials judgement) as having no chance anylonger of entering the hoop. Thus we score two points regardless of if A or B touches as the try had ended. In essence B is "shooting" at the wrong basket. However 5.2.1 clearly contradicts this by stating that any try, tap, or THROWN BALL (not a try) that enters the bucket from beyond 19-9 that does not touch a teammate, official, or the floor counts 3 points.

Thus we obviously have circular language and there is a case for 2 and a case for 3 points being awarded. Thus IMO we need a wording clarification in the FED book to clearly give us jurisdiction to rule one way or the other.

Sorry guys this is so long, I needed to work it out in my head more for myself than anything!!

To be legally touched by a team A player on a completed alley-oop pass, the ball must have had NO chance of going in. Otherwise, if the ball had a chance of going in, it would be illegal touching and thus offensive GT. The ball is legally touched because the try ended when there was no possibility of the ball going in untouched. Of course,the supposition is that the ball is on the way down on the alley-oop.

That's the difference that we have been arguing. I just can't picture an alley-oop pass being legally touched on the way UP by a defender who is 20 feet away from where the pass originated.

I think the difference between the two cases is exactly has been said.

5-2-1 was added to cover thrown balls (toward the basket) that may or may not have been shots. It was added to remove the need for judgement. It was NOT added to make a clear pass that is NOT towards the basket into a 3.

A thrown ball that is clearly NOT towards the basket is not the case intended to be covered by 5-2-1. That is where 4-40-4 comes in.

A pass from the top of the key to the low block that get tapped upwards by the defender and subsequently goes in is 2.

A 3-point shot that misses and is then tapped in by the defender is only two points.

We really need to understand the spirit and intent of 5-2-1 to rule on these cases properly.

Cameron:

You have stated right here the exact problem I have. 5.2.1 states A sucessful try , tap or thrown ball that does not touch the floor, a teammate, or official, from the field by a player who is located behind the team's 19-9 line counts 3 points.

The pass from the top of the key fits here and no-where does it state that the B players touching causes the ball to become a two point goal.

That is the problem I have w/ the wording of this rule.

Can we consider the touch by B scoring a field goal in the wrong basket? If so than 5.2.3 covers the loopehole by refering it back to the last part of 5.2.1 stating: ...anyother goal from the field counts 2 points for the team whos basket it is thrown.

This may be sufficient but there has to be better wording on the FEDS part.

[Edited by MN 3 Sport Ref on Dec 5th, 2003 at 01:10 PM]

Camron, after reading this whole thread and especially the cases in 4.40, I agree with you and JR. But what that means is that 5-2-1 is seriously flawed in its wording. Hopefully, somebody on the rules committee will note this and make some sort of revision next year.

BTW, this is one that we'll talk about on Sunday!

Man, can I get you guys going or what? FYI, I didnt see this play in person.

I bounced this question around our association big dawgs too with very similar results. In almost all cases, when I suggested the question, people suggested this is a 2. In most cases when I brought up 5-2-1, the doubts showed up and thoughts of 3 re-entered peoples heads.

The more I think about this, the more I believe in this case we have an unmakeable shot since we have a legal touch meaning no goal tending. I'm in the "2" camp.

I was in the 5-2-1 Three points camp too! Darn, now I owe a local big dawg a hot fudge sundae

Thanks to all for an excellent conversation and research.

Larks
VIT