But even in that logic, you have decided it was a try. Are you suggesting that the try ends before it begins? Player has to catch it before starting the shooting motion...otherwise it's just a tap/bat.

I still assert that a try is an attempt to put any live ball into the basket. That definition is in controverted. This is still a try.

However, I can buy the point that the try may be both begun and ended with the catch.

That is exactly what they are saying. The try begins and ends simultaneously in this specific case due to the .3 timing rule.

There is no try. It's not possible for a try to be attempted. If the ball is caught, time expires before a try can be attempted.

I humbly reverse my ruling. It takes some judgement away from us that could only be controversal. The casebook interpretation seals the debate.

No. Every reference to this that i've seen in the formal rules or case does imply that it is a try...just that it can't be successful and perhaps ends simultaneous with the beginning.

Again, a try is defined as an attempt to put a live ball in the basket. It doesn't matter if the player has a chance to make it. It's still a try. However, that try ends before it is released.

This happens either of two ways. The ball is dead when the clock expires since it is declared that the player can't possible catch/release in that time. Once the player catches the ball, the try both begins and ends on the catch since you know he can't successfuly complete the try.

Consider a slower player catching the throw-in with 0.5 seconds left. If they start the motions of a try but don't release the shot before the expiration of the clock, it is still a try. It just ends with the horn.

The 0.3 second rule is not meant to change the definition of a try...just to give the official guidance on whether the clock should expire or not to avoid issues with the preciseness of the clockkeeper.

Calif Study Guide
 

The California study guides specifically points to section 4-8-1a which details shooting a one and one. I had this situation in a summer game. It was a double bonus situation however, so we shot two shots.

Camron, if it was a try, he would shoot two shots, wouldn't he? But we've established that he DOES NOT shoot 2 FTs. That's because there is no try. It doesn't begin and end with the catch, it simply never is.

Your description is a change in the definition, not mine. The try begins and ends with the catch? Where can I find that definition?

I'm done.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Nov 11th, 2004 at 08:24 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]Camron, if it was a try, he would shoot two shots, wouldn't he? But we've established that he DOES NOT shoot 2 FTs. That's because there is no try. It doesn't begin and end with the catch, it simply never is.

Your description is a change in the definition, not mine. The try begins and ends with the catch? Where can I find that definition?

I'm done.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Nov 12th, 2004 at 04:12 AM]

Re: Calif Study Guide
 

The NCAA rule provides for "ignoring" the foul (uless it's intentional or flagrant) -- no FTs to be shot. The game is over on the catch.

See 4-67.5 AR44

Re: Re: Calif Study Guide
 

Exactly. There is no try.