|
Quote:
How do you really argue any judgement call? |
FIBA 15.1 goes: "A shot for a field goal or a free throw is when the ball is held in a player’s hand(s) and is then thrown through the air towards the opponents' basket."
This would surely qualify as a "shot for a field goal". What do american rules say? |
Reply to back court question.
Quote:
Answer: The official was correct. Although the situation would have resulted in a three point goal if the ball had passed through the goal, this would have been under the rule (5.2.1) regarding "a thrown ball from the field by a player from behind the team's own 19 foot, 9 inch arc." Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass, by rule (4.12.4) team control did not end. Therefore, Team A, who had control, was the last to touch the ball before it went backcourt and the first to touch after it went backcourt. By rule (Rule 9.9.1) this is a backcourt violation. |
Not in my game, it's not. I'm ruling this a try. Sorry, Catawba.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
An analogy would be to look at a play and say "There was contact on that play. It <b>must</b> be a foul". The correct answer however is that there was contact on the play, but it's only a foul if the contact was judged as <b>not</b> being incidental. And that's up to the calling official solely, no one else. |
JR it doesn't seem that you have a problem with the ruling given, but rather have a big problem with the Catawba people categorically stating that this action is not a try for goal. In other words they are removing a necessary element of judgment by the official as to whether this action was a pass or a try.
Oddly enough, you seem to being guilty of the same thing when you state "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo." I would rather see you not use that criterion, but judge each individual play on its own. For example, consider the following play: A1 drives the end line and reaches a position in the lane directly under the backboard when he ends his dribble. He spots teammate A2 open near the top of the key, so he jumps and throws the ball in that direction. The ball strikes the underside of the front of the ring and due to the change in direction sails past A2 and into the backcourt. A2 is then the first player to touch the ball. Surely you would deem this play a backcourt violation, right? |
Quote:
Comprehension 101. I said that it could be called <b>either</b>. I also said that I, JR, would <b>personally</b> call it a try and <b>NO</b> backcourt violation. I don't have a problem at all with anybody else having a different opinion, and saying that in <b>their</b> opinion, it wasn't a try and therefore it was a back court violation. I do have a major problem with the people at Catawba turning a <b>judgement</b> call into a <b>non-judgement</b> call though, which is what they are doing. And your example is a <b>judgement</b> call also, and could be ruled either way too. Why? Because maybe you are able to, but the majority of officials can't read minds. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
When I said "animal lover", I really had no idea. :eek: I changed my mind. He can't be a Yankees fan. He <b>has</b> to be a BoSox fan. Shoulda known......:rolleyes: |
You are failing to recognize that your OPINION is even more declarative than the ruling of the Catawba people.
Catawba is actually being much more reasonable than you are, since they are allowing for the official to judge this action to be a pass. You are flatly stating that it is always a try. That is just wrong. Catawba writes, "Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass" then this is a backcourt violation. JR says, "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo" no matter what, I'm not calling backcourt. So could you please show me a rule that says that? Where is it in any of the NFHS books that just because the ball hits the ring it is automatically a try? In short, your opinion is unreasonable and does not allow for this play to be called properly. YOU, not Catawba, are the one turning a judgment call into a non-judgment call by stating that this is always a try for goal when you are the official. Now go back to Comprehension 100, since you are obviously not ready for the 101 level yet.:D |
Quote:
I'm saying that it could be a <b>pass</b> OR a <b>try</b> depending on each individual official's personal judgement. Then I gave you <b>MY</b> personal judgement. If my personal judgement is that it's a try, then I can't be wrong on that straight judgement call. You still fail to comprehend that. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Catawba issued a ruling that it is <b>always</b> a pass and therefore it is <b>always</b> a violation. I disagree with that. That is <b>their</b> ruling only. They do not have any definitive rules citation to make that particular ruling imo. End of story. I'm done, Nevada. Find somebody else for the rest of this one. |
Quote:
He is saying the official is free to rule on the play as his judgement dictates, either a pass or a try. He then says as he reads *this* play he would rule it a try. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02pm. |