LITTLE THINGS.. and WIERD PLAYS.. OPEN POST

[mick]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
But the rule is crystal clear.

"...And so are they all, all honorable men." - Wm.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick

"...And so are they all, all honorable men." - Wm.

I'm just saying. . .

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
[/B]

If everybody agrees that the rule is worded incorrectly, and we all agree to call it some other way, fine.

[/B][/QUOTE]I will if you will.

I agree that the wording certainly isn't the best, in light of what is present elsewhere in the rules, and I can also see the logic of your argument. I do think however that the purpose and intent of the rule would be to NOT award 3 points in cases where a defined 3-point "try" or "tap" would normally have ended by rule- such as in this situation. I also think that the casebook play that I cited follows the actual intent of the rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Or MOP it up...

Or lick it up. Of course, with the understanding that we are talking about our own dripple, and not our partner's.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Not sure what I believe, but here's what I know:

SECTION 2 SCORING
ART. 1 . . . A successful 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 own 19-foot, 9-inch line counts three points. Any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown. See 4-5-4.

If the ball is thrown from behind the arc, and it doesn't touch the floor, teammate or official, the rule says it's 3 points. I also know what the casebook says. But this rule obviously and unambiguously states that it's 3 points.

If everybody agrees that the rule is worded incorrectly, and we all agree to call it some other way, fine. But the rule is crystal clear.

And that is where knowing the intent of the rule comes in. The intent, as I think we all know, was to remove judgement from deciding whether a ball thrown at/near the basket was a try or a not. It's assumed to be worth 3 points....although the rule doesn't actually make it a try.

This rule was never intended to cover a thrown ball whose original trajectory was not towards the basket.

[rainmaker]

We know that we have some influence on the Rules COmmittee. Can we suggest some wording that would be less troublesome?

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by rainmaker
We know that we have some influence on the Rules COmmittee. Can we suggest some wording that would be less troublesome?

Remembering, of course, that a camel is nothing but a horse that's been through a committee......

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Not sure what I believe, but here's what I know:

SECTION 2 SCORING
ART. 1 . . . A successful 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 own 19-foot, 9-inch line counts three points. Any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown. See 4-5-4.

If the ball is thrown from behind the arc, and it doesn't touch the floor, teammate or official, the rule says it's 3 points. I also know what the casebook says. But this rule obviously and unambiguously states that it's 3 points.

If everybody agrees that the rule is worded incorrectly, and we all agree to call it some other way, fine. But the rule is crystal clear.

I think the 3 point for a throw was rather accepted - the problem came about when we mixed illegal touching by the defense (BI/GT) into the situation.