Ok, next set of questions.

#1) During the opening jump ball, A1 catches the tossed ball. Official blows the whistle and awards the ball to team B As soon as the ball is touched inbounds the scorer sets the poss. arrow in the direction of team A's basket. Is the official correct? The key says "yes", but isn't the arrow set when the ball is at the disposal of the inbounder?

#2) A1, from behind the 3-point arc attempts a diangonal pass to A2 in the corner. B1 deflects the pass which enters the basket. Official awards team A 3 points. Is the official correct? I think that by a strict reading of 5-2-1, the answer is yes. We've had this conversation before, but what do you all think?

#3) B1 in the 2-point area, passes the ball toward the basket for an alley-oop to B2. A1 leaps and touches the ball while it is on its downward flight, above the ring level, outside the cylinder and in the judgment of the official has a chance of entering the basket. Official rules GT and counts the basket. Is the official correct? The key says yes, but the play is a pass. We absolutely cannot have GT without a try, right?

1)The arrow is only set when the ball is at the disposal of the inbounder if the violation on the opening jump occurred <b>before</b> a player gained control-as per R4-3-3(a). In this case, the violation and player control were simultaneous. That means that it now becomes an AP violation and R6-4-4 becomes the applicable rule. Iow, the correct answer is "yes".

2)I'd say yes too. Case book play 5.2.1SitC(a&b) is the same play and also uses the language "<b>throws</b> the ball".

3)Gotta agree with you on this one. The goaltending definition- R4-22- sez it applies to field goal tries or taps. It doesn't mention passes.

#1)I think the arrow is reversed after the throw in ends, not when it's at the disposal of the thrower. For example, team A has an AP throw-in. A1 pushes B1 while A2 is holding the ball for a throw in. The arrow is not changed..A retains the next AP throw-in(6.3.5).

#3)5.2.1 B has the situation where the alley oop pass is thrown and goes in the basket. "A ball 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. I think logic would dictate (OK, I know I'm on thin ice here) that you would have to consider the pass (above the rim, downward flight, chance to go in) as a try, and call goaltending. I guess the logic would extend to, if an OFFENSIVE player touched it, would you call offensive goaltending?

But wasn't this the point of changing the interpretation a few years ago. If the ball was caught by a jumper, we used to give the ball and the arrow to the other team b/c control came before the violation. Now, in essence, we're saying that the jumper never had control of the ball before the violation. So wouldn't that also apply to my test question?

I'm honestly not acting dumb, but what does the underlined part mean? How can it be an AP violation when the AP procedure has not yet been established?

I say no. The purpose and intent of that rule (perhaps poorly written) is solely to remove the judgement of whether a thrown ball is a try or not.

In this case, it is most clearly NOT thrown anywhere near the basket.

The original thrown ball must have remote chance of going in (unassisted) before this rule should apply.

I would have to disagree because of the casebook play 5.2.1(c)(b). It says A1 throws the ball from behind the 3-pt. line (not passed or shot, just thrown), is legally touched by B1 who is in the 2-pt. area, and goes through the basket. Three points are scored because of the legal touching was by the defense, and the ball was thrown from behind the 3-pt. line. Like you said, the rule was written to remove the judgement from the play - whether it was a shot or a pass, and likewise, whether the original throw had a chance to go in or not.

I'm not too worried about this one. Don't see a lot of this in 6th grade girls!

The case play you mention is talking about a ball thrown toward the basket that is tipped by B1 in an attempt to block what may be a shot. The fact that B1 touches the ball from within the 2-point area doesn't change the nature of the ball thrown by A1. If it imparts and entirely new direction to a ball that is not thrown towards the basket, this case is not relevant.

But it does not say towards the basket in the case play. It also specifically says thrown ball instead of the terms tap or try.

Look at it this way - say a player is at half court and is saving the ball from a backcourt violation. He heaves the ball back over his head, and it happens to go in his team's basket. We all know it's not a shot (try), but if the ball goes in it's still 3 points. This rule only has to do with scoring. We only have to determine pass or shot when it involves fouls, free throws, airborne shooters, etc. For example, if either of our players is fouled (A1 in the original example, or the guy that just saved the backcourt violation), and we know it's a pass instead of a try, the ball would be dead immediately and the basket would not count, because the player is not a shooter. So, like you said, this rule and interp was set up to take the judgement out of the scoring - we don't have to judge whether the player was shooting or passing. All we need to know is the ball left the offensive player's hand outside the 3-point line, and no other offensive player touched it inside the 3-point line.

Camron, are you saying that the offensive player has to be attempting a try or tap before this rule applies? That's basically the same as saying that it has to have a remote chance to in, isn't it?

That doesn't gibe with the language of rule 5-2-1. The FED added "thrown ball" to the language of this rule when they changed the rule back in 2001-02. There's no restrictions anywhere that I know of that sez you have to throw the ball in any particular direction before this rule applies.

When the FED put in this language back in 2001-02, they put the following explanation in the back of the rule book under <b>"COMMENTS ON THE 2001-02 RULES REVISIONS"</b>-- <i>"Three points shall be awarded for any ball thrown, passed or shot from beyond the three-point arc that passes through a team's own basket. 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 judgement as to whether the ball in flight was a pass or a try"</i>.

By saying that the ball must have a remote chance of going in for this rule to apply, you're trying to put judgement back into a call that the FED sez doesn't require any judgement.

The violation & player control can't be ruled simultaneous because 4-12-1 says "there is no player control when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper."
In the 2002 - 2003 rulebook, (the year this rule was changed) - see 6.3.1, situations C & E -- sit C has Chuck's test question (in the current book, it's 6.4.1sitC); and the ruling in situation E is that, when the ball is in the possession of the thrower of team B, team B has gained control (worded poorly IMO) for purposes of establishing the AP procedure, and the arrow is immediately pointed in the direction of A's basket.

JR,

First I'll start by saying that I agree with you. Now, a sitch in which Cameron would have an argument, but NFHS takes care of in the above rule explination.

A1 has the ball outside the arc top of the key, lobs a pass towards half court to A2 who is being guarded by B2. B2 steps in front of the pass and deflects it towards the basket and it goes in. We have three points awarded to A1 here even though this was clearly not a try. NFHS takes that part of the decision process completely out of the equation for us, if the ball goes through the ring all we have to decide is did it originate from in or outside the arc so we know wether or not to award two or three points.

Yup, that's true. I was wrong. IAABO was wrong also- for whatever the hell that's worth. Good catch.

I'm not saying it must be a try. A try requires intent. If intent were required, we'd be back in the same boat as before.

It is, however, important to know the intent an purpose of the rule...why it was added. It was not added to cover an entry pass that is tipped up into the basket. It was not added to cover a pass around the perimeter that is swatted such that it goes in. It was added to cover a ball that was thrown toward the basket that goes in....no need to decided if it was a bad pass or a try.

The intent and purpose of the rule is exactly what the NFHS stated above in the rule book in their "COMMENTS ON THE 2001-02 RULES REVISIONS"--i.e. <b>"while in most cases a try can be differentiated from a pass, to eliminate possible confusion this change should help to clarify by not requiring judgement as to whether the ball in flight was a pass or a try"</b>. There is no mention anywhere of any stipulation that the ball must be passed <b>at</b> the basket. You're adding your own words to the rule- words that can't be found in anything the FED put out regarding this rule. This change covered any ball that was <b>"thrown, passed or shot"</b>, inclusive, as per the FED language above. They didn't add any restrictions as to <b>how</b> the ball must be thrown or passed. That would hardly go along with their intent to take judgement out of the call completely.

Just can't agree with you on this one.

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.