what rule set is this? NCAA?

No, IAABO deals with NFHS rules.

Ok, well scince I only know FIBA I guess it doesn't matter if it's NCAA or NFHS or Marsian rules really :P not for me anyway

Nope.

I realize the confusion, especially with the addition of the "errant pass = 3 points rule" a few years back. However, the most important distinction here is that between GT and BI. BI applies anytime the ball is in the cylinder over the basket, or is on the basket (even during a throw-in). GT only applies when the ball is in downward flight on a try. (Quick quiz - what's the exception?) We still have to differentiate between a try and a pass for purposes of the GT rule.

Camron --

I agree that what you stated is what the rule *should be*.

I agree that what you stated is how the rule is interpreted under NCAA rules.

It's not, however, how the rule is interpreted under FED rules. In FED, it matters not why the ball left A's hand -- only that it did so behind the three-point line and subsequently went in the basket touching nothing other than a defender.

I consider the action by the defender that completely changes the trajectory of the ball to be an entirely different action...not unlike the defender catching the ball and mistakenly shooting it into A's basket. It's no longer a ball thrown by A when B changes the path of the ball such that it ends up 15' from where A was throwing it.

The rule also mentions nothing about a defender batting a ball in. The rule assumes the uncomplicated case of the thrown ball entering the basket untouched (or with only a slight touch). We don't have to decide if the thrower was throwing it to the person near the basket or shooting....eliminates that confusion.

There was never confusion on a ball that was passed below or dropped below the rim on the "pass/try" when it was, by any player, tipped up into the basket....it was always 2 points...and still is. The rule is meant to cover anything the could have remotely been a shot when it enters the basket. Passing below the rim ends all possibilities of it being a try and thus can never be three points.

Isn't that completely different than what the language in case book play 5.2.1SitC(a&b) is saying, Camron? That case book play refers to a ball being <b>"thrown"</b> from outside the arc, then subsequently being touched by the defense. The ruling was that if the defensive touching was legal, the ball would still count as a 3 if it went in, no matter where the defender was standing. Iow, the legal touching by the defense isn't really a factor at all in the case of a ball <b>thrown</b> from behind the arc. If the ball goes in, it's a 3- no matter what.

FIBA rules again:P

1. Yes I think you're right, the arrow shoule even be set when the ref makes the call.

2. depends on wehre B1's standing, if outside the arc, 3 points, if inside or on 2 points, just as if it was an offender scoring.

3. I'd count GT, even a pass that accidently goes in counts- hence the call

Again, look at the case play. It does specifically mention 4 situations - being touched by a defender inside or outside the 3-point line, and being touched by a teammate inside or outside the line. You are adding words that aren't mentioned in the rule or case play, such as "batting" the ball, "slight touch" "near the basket", or "below the rim". None of these conditions are in the rule and case plays. I think you might be confusing try vs. pass, but in the case of scoring and NF rules, those terms are not applicable. The only terms that apply are A1 is "outside the 3-point line", it was a "try, tap or thrown ball", and the ball is "legally touched" by B1.

One of the reasons I'm familiar with this is because I have seen this play decide a game. I wasn't working it, just watching. The clock was winding down, team A was down 2. A1 was in the corner outside the 3-pt. line, and was passing the ball into the post. B2 was trying to defend from behind, and reached over just enough to deflect the pass up, and it went in the basket. The crew had to stop the game and put up the three, because the table obviously assumed it was a 2. B's coach wasn't happy (understatement), and in the discussion after the game the casebook play was explained and shown to him. He still wasn't too happy with the result, but at least he calmed down enough to understand the call was correct. And I certainly learned that crew had the guts to make the correct call in that situation.

Turn it around
 

Passer is intentionally attempting to lead his center into the alley-oop play. He makes a strong (obvious) pass toward the basket. His center gets caught up and can't get to the pass. The strong (obvious) pass goes in the basket! We count 3-points.

Chuck are you alright? Seems that you would normally have these answers ready at a second's notice. Perhaps it is just because the season hasn't started yet? Is an alias Elias using your moniker? ;)

The assumption is that the defender merely "touched" the ball and that the throw was the force that put the ball in the basket or it is not possible to tell if the defensive touch caused the ball to go in or not.

In EVERY case published, the situation is of a ball being thrown in a way that it might go in. The case play only clarifies that the defensive touching doesn't change the status of the ball if it was on a path that just might be a shot.

Why is everyone forgetting the fundamentals....knowing the purpose and intent of the rule.

Yes, it may be worded poorly. However, at the time of the rule changed it was quite clear what case this was intended to cover. It was meant to take the judgement out of a throw that just might have been a try.

It was NEVER intended to cover throw that was undisputably a pass such as an entry pass that get's deflected up and into the basket by a defender or a pass going away from the basket that gets diverted toward the basket by a defensive bat.

If you want to go by the strict wording of the rules....These situations are NOT a ball thrown into the basket. They are cases of the defense batting the ball into the basket. The throw ended when the defense batted the ball.

Why is everyone forgetting the fundamentals....knowing the purpose and intent of the rule.

Yes, it may be worded poorly. However, at the time of the rule changed it was quite clear what case this was intended to cover. <font color = red>It was meant to take the judgement out of a throw that just might have been a try</font>.

[/B][/QUOTE]Can't agree with that at all. If it might have been a try, in <b>ALL</b> cases, then there wasn't really any judgement present in the first place and no reason to make an editorial change. The rule covers any ball <b>THROWN</b> from outside the arc. PERIOD!!!! There is no language or case play extant that would say otherwise. It's not our job to interpret the rules ourselves by adding language to it that isn't there- especially when there's absolutely no language available anywhere that will back up that personal interpretation.

If the FED wanted this play to <b>only</b> apply to a "try", then there was no need at all to add the new language in the first place. The old language covered that "try" quite nicely.