A lot of knowledge and experience in this forum.. and I'm sure this post has probably existed in the past. But, thought it would be informative for all. 2 things to talk about.

TALK ABOUT THE LITTLE THINGS that some of you do in games that maybe not everyone thinks or knows about ?

(My 2 cents: Trail moving onto the court off the sideline to create a better angle to see matchup play coming from the wing, instead of glueing yourself to the sideline)

or

TALK ABOUT THE WIERD PLAYS that have happened in your games and how you handled them ??

Not really looking for extensive debate on what is right or wrong... just ideas for everyone... so that we can learn from others. Decide on your own wether it is something you'd like to use or not.

And i'm talking about little things.. little ideas.. Pregames talks, how you've handled players/coaches, etc...

Let's keep it productive.

Sounds like you are suggesting the entire Basketball Forum be put in one thread. ;)
mick

Productive? That's asking a lot, doncha think? :D

I think the weirdest play I've ever had was during the jump when both jumpers went up, swung, and trapped the ball between their upstretched hands, and came down and landed with the ball right there between their hands. We re-jumped.

OK, Imagine this, player is dribbling full speed toward his basket on a fast break, somehow, the ball lands directly between his legs and gets trapped for a second.

As the player takes the next stride, the ball gets flipped up and over his head from back to front and he catches it in stride and shoots without dribbling again and scores.

The official was laughing so hard he could not call a thing.

I don't see what he could have called anyway. :)
Player dribbles.
Player accidentally stops dribble.
Player fumbles.
Player recovers and shoots.

This would have been too funny.

I had kind of a weird play in a game. Team A has the ball in the front court and their point guard, A1, is dribbling outside the three point line. A1 picks up his dripple and throws a hard pass into the lane. The ball bounces of B player and goes strait up and into the hoop, without touching another A player. We counted the basket as a three and played on. Saying it was the same as a tip on a shot because A1 threw the ball in from behind the three point line.

Whoa, I didn't see it but it sounds like it maybe shoulda been a 2-point basket only. The ball had to "legally" be touched by the defender in this play for a 3-point basket to be credited. Iow, it had to still be on the way up. That's NFHS casebook play 5.2.1SitC(b). If the ball legally hits a defender on the way DOWN inside the 3-point line or it is obviously short or below the basket ring, the shot has ended and if it subsequently goes in, you only award 2 points. See NFHS casebook play 4.40.4SitB.

If another player legally "tips" a shot inside the arc, as you state above, that automatically ends the 3-point attempt also, and only 2 points can be scored.

First of all, the ball was legally touched by the defense. It wasn't a try, so there's no goaltending to worry about. Second, we had a huge thread on this a while ago. I don't have the cases with me, but from that conversation, I clearly remember that the rule says that "any thrown ball" that starts outside the arc and goes in without touching the floor or another offensive player is a 3. I'm gonna go try to find that thread. Lemme just hit the "search" button. . . :(

Here's my "little thing" to add to this thread. Somebody said that they get bored in the C position. Well, here's one small thing to add to your "C" responsibilities.

When the post player has the ball right in front of the Lead, and then dribbles or pivots away from the baseline (toward the Trail) and then continues into the lane and shoots, that play is the Center's primary responsibility. The ball is coming right at the C, and the C should take anything that happens on that move. Train yourself to extend your vision just a little when the low-post player spins away from the baseline.

My thoughts on this play are that the NFHS did a very poor job when they made that rule change (5-2-1) in the 2001-2002 book. The idea was good (to make a lob pass that goes in worth 3 pts.), but the wording of the new rule had some ( very likely) unintended consequences. One of them is this particular play. While if one just reads the new rule and takes it as written, Chuck is correct, and the play is worth 3 points. I believe that is a very unfortunate ruling, and that the NFHS should write a new casebook play to make it clear that they did not wish to contradict 4.40.4 sit B (b) as JR points out. I have to believe that this ruling is still correct since the NFHS continued to print it in the current casebook.
Right now the two rules conflict, and that is not a good situation. The play should be worth only 2 pts.
What is the difference if the ball is thrown with an arc that goes above the level of the ring and then back down to hit a defender, standing in the lane on the shoulder, and goes in or if the ball is thrown hard and in a straight line at the defender? A team should only be awarded three points if the ball had a chance to go in after being thrown.

I just looked up the comment that accompanied that rule change and it says:
"While in most situations a "try" can be differentiated from a pass, to eliminate possible confusion this change should help to clarify by not requiring judgment as to whether the ball in flight was a pass or try." 2001-2002 Rules Book page 72.
Therefore, this rule change is intended to only apply to that particular situation. We are not supposed to use it to justify awarding 3 pts on a play like the one described above. Bottom line: use common sense and know the intent of the rule!

[Edited by Nevadaref on Apr 28th, 2004 at 06:12 AM]

Can't find the thread. Somebody else's gonna have to do it.

I'm goin' with JR
 

Chuck,
I do not believe that you believe that.
mick
<HR>
<U>Dripple</U> : liquid draining from an old ref's mouth to that old ref's chin from the Fox orifice. It is encouraged to pick up one's dripple as often as necessary.

<U>Dripple</U> : liquid draining from an old ref's mouth to that old ref's chin from the Fox orifice.
[/B][/QUOTE]Or more commonly known as "drooling" amongst us old folks.

Oooooo, pipple
Don't wanna cause a ripple
but because I tipple
I got dripple
coming from my lipple
onto my nipple.

Oh what, oh what shall I do?

Re: I'm goin' with JR
 

Or MOP it up...

Re: I'm goin' with JR
 

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.

Re: Re: I'm goin' with JR
 

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

Re: Re: Re: I'm goin' with JR
 

I'm just saying. . .

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.

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

Re: Re: I'm goin' with JR
 

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.

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......

Re: Re: I'm goin' with JR
 

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.