NFHS rule 4-41-2:
" A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team's own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal..."

The definition of a pass is in NFHS rule 4-31:
"A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player."

Without seeing the play, I don't think that anyone can say for sure what the correct ruling is. The official has to determine whether A1 directed the ball toward A2 (which would be a pass) or toward team A's basket (which would be a try for field goal).

From the description given, I would probably rule that A1 was trying for goal. Since the ball hit the rim, A1 must have been directing the ball toward his/her team's basket. However, without actually seeing the play, it is hard to say for sure what the correct ruling is.

All I know is, that it must really suck to officiate in Catawba!:D

The case play referenced earlier (4.15.4 sit c) tells us that the throw in question is a try, so I don't see that it applies here. The whole deal here is whether it is a try or not. The OP in this thread gives the impression (to me anyway) that the throw comes from near the division line. If time is not an issue, that alone would make one doubt that it was a try. Look at the whole picture. If there was a guy near the rim attempting to catch this ball, I would have no problem calling it a pass, so therefore, the violation is correct.

I don't know, just because there's a fella ready to catch the ball doesn't mean much. May have been going up just to make sure. I'm leaning towards a more loose philosophy anyway, so if I can justify a no-call, I'm going down that road.

The guy trying to catch it alone would be a relatively small piece of the puzzle. After further consideration, I decided that the OP did not specify where the throw came from, but it was mentioned that he had crossed the division line to let us know that the ball had achieved frontcourt status prior to the release. BUT, if indeed this was ruled a pass, where the player was when the ball was released would not matter in this situation. I think Coach P hit the nail on the head on this one. If A1 was fouled in this situation, we must decide whether it was a try or not, regardless of what it hit or didn't hit. In the original sit in this post, we would actually have the luxury of a little more time to make this decision. The biggest factor in this decision, imo, would be the mechanics/body language of the player making the pass/try. For most, not all, players, the mechanics on the two are quite different. I would treat this like the player slapping the backboard. If I can possibly imagine this was a legitimate block attempt, no call. In this case, if I can imagine that it was a try, no call.

This one sailed right over my head.

Points can be scored without a try so that adds nothing to the discussion.

________________________________________________

Dude, is anyone even remotely sober when you guys in the Catawba River Association get together and think this stuff up?

I'm just sitting here, eating my popcorn, while you guys discuss this silly play.

It's simple...if you judge the nthrow a try, it's not a BC violation. If you judge it not to be a try, it's a violation.

You could argue forever whether it's a try or not. No one will win.

I'll buy that. Main reason I posted was that an overwhelming majority seemed to say "IT IS A TRY!" (cuz I said so even) This judgment doesn't seem any tougher to make than countless others we are asked to make every night.

Um....well....yeah....

That was kinda my point too.:)

There is <b>no</b> definitive answer, Catawba notwithstanding.

Unless you're Woddy and then it's definitely a try because the ball hit the ring. :rolleyes:

Doesn't everyone's old friend common sense come into play here somewhere? A guy dribbles over the division line, launches what is described as an "alley oop pass", and it hits the ring. Its already been defined as a pass....why is everyone changing something that has been determined?

The action has been judged a pass...it was stated as such by the op...so it HAS to be a backcourt violation.

Sigh.

Common sense is <b>knowing</b> that you can't read a player's mind. It's a judgement call by the calling official as to whether it actually was an alley-oop pass or a try. The concept shouldn't be that difficult.