Thought provoking back court question.

[mbyron]

How about this:

1. IF an official were to judge that the throw was a pass, then the correct call in this sitch would be BC violation.

2. IF endorsing the principle in (1) was ALL that Catawba intended when they claimed that the official in the OP was "correct," then they were right. That official did in fact rule the throw a pass, so was correct to call the violation.

3. OTOH, if Catawba intended to claim that in all such plays the throw must be judged a pass rather than a try, then they are usurping official judgment: some of us think that any thrown ball that strikes the rim (from above) counts as a try, others decline to second guess the calling official, and still others are reluctant to rule without seeing the play.

4. If Catawba is usurping official judgment when it claims that all such cases must be ruled passes, then parity of reasoning suggests that it would equally usurp official judgment to claim that all such cases must be ruled tries.

5. Hypothetically, any Yankees fan who might claim that he personally would rule these cases tries would NOT be committed to the claim in (4), since he would seem not to be saying that they must be called thus. Were such a (merely hypothetical) Yankees fan to hint, suggest, or argue that those who disagreed with him were mistaken, then I believe he would be committed to the claim in (4), and thus be inconsistent.

Hope this helps clarify matters.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

How about this:

1. IF an official were to judge that the throw was a pass, then the correct call in this sitch would be BC violation.

2. IF endorsing the principle in (1) was ALL that Catawba intended when they claimed that the official in the OP was "correct," then they were right. That official did in fact rule the throw a pass, so was correct to call the violation.

3. OTOH, if Catawba intended to claim that in all such plays the throw must be judged a pass rather than a try, then they are usurping official judgment: some of us think that any thrown ball that strikes the rim (from above) counts as a try, others decline to second guess the calling official, and still others are reluctant to rule without seeing the play.

4. If Catawba is usurping official judgment when it claims that all such cases must be ruled passes, then parity of reasoning suggests that it would equally usurp official judgment to claim that all such cases must be ruled tries.

5. Hypothetically, any Yankees fan who might claim that he personally would rule these cases tries would NOT be committed to the claim in (4), since he would seem not to be saying that they must be called thus. Were such a (merely hypothetical) Yankees fan to hint, suggest, or argue that those who disagreed with him were mistaken, then I believe he would be committed to the claim in (4), and thus be inconsistent.

Hope this helps clarify matters.

After wading through all that gobbleydegook, nothing changes. It still comes back to every individual official's judgement. One Yankee fan might call it a pass. Another Yankee fan might call it a try. This Yankee fan has already stated what his own personal judgement would be. All three Yankees fans are correct in their calls.

[Ignats75]

My only question on this tempest in a teapot is this:

You mean to tell me you can't tell by watching a player whether he was attempting a try or a pass?: eek:

I actually had this call last season during a JV game. It was readily apparent on the fast break that the player was trying to lob the player ahead of the play but threw the ball too far. It hit the rim and went into the backcourt. I could tell it was a pass and called the violation.

It would've been easier to let it go as its one of those rulings that because coaches and crowd don't know all the nuances of the rules. But the easy call isn't the right call. The coach was upset. I explained to him the rule and my judgement and he accepted it. The crowd never did, but who cares.

[missinglink]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

And I'm not trying to win either but I'm just trying to think objectively how I would react as Trail official in this case. Trail is monitoring the player and ball which just crossed the division line. Most alley-oop passes are one hand running push passes which look pretty much like running one hand shots--and because this pass/try is pretty much on line with the goal (alley-oop). , I'm thinking that my first reaction in the case as described (actually regardless the shooter/passer's form) is going to be the three point try mechanic and as the mechanic goes up I have therefore judged this effort to be a try and I don't think I would be inclined to change my judgment.

Absolutely. One should be able to judge, in almost all cases, if a play from 30 feet out is a pass or a shot. In the original post, it was clearly stated that it was a pass. Violation. End of story.

[Ignats75]

Most alley-oop passes are one hand running push passes which look pretty much like running one hand shots

Huh????

Most Alley-oops I see are two handed (Chest passes) as they are more accurate. Certainly the one in my case was a chest pass.