Thought provoking back court question.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No more relevant than if it simply hits the rim. . . Didn't you recently say:

Yup, sure did. That's because I'm deeming it a try, not being Carnac the Magnificent.

But....whether we give it it 3 if it goes or not isn't dependant on it being a "try" though. Iow, the "try" aspect just ain't relevant when it's used to determine whether a "3" was scored or not, but it is is relevant when it comes to determining whether a back court violation occurs or not. See what I'm getting at? Completely different. Apples and oranges. Yankees and BoSox.

[bob jenkins]

I agree with the others that it's not a violation.

But, I'm using the case play where A1 dribbles, stops, throws the ball off his own backboard, then starts another dribble (legal play) as my justification.

[CoachP]

So if A1 crosses the timeline and launches a 40 foot "ally oop" and is whacked on the arm during this "ally oop" try:

1) does he get 3 FT shots if the ball hits the rim?
2) does he get 3 Ft shots if the ball falls harmlessly to the ground?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CoachP

So if A1 crosses the timeline and launches a 40 foot "ally oop" and is whacked on the arm during this "ally oop" try:

1) does he get 3 FT shots if the ball hits the rim?
2) does he get 3 Ft shots if the ball falls harmlessly to the ground?

Or 3), does the official suck air and not call a foul?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CoachP

So if A1 crosses the timeline and launches a 40 foot "ally oop" and is whacked on the arm during this "ally oop" try:

1) does he get 3 FT shots if the ball hits the rim?
2) does he get 3 Ft shots if the ball falls harmlessly to the ground?

Again, it's a judgement call, Coach.

How do you really argue any judgement call?

[TADW_Elessar]

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?

[lorenj]

Originally Posted by TADW_Elessar

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?

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!

[BktBallRef]

LOL! Keep on keepin' on, folks!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree with the others that it's not a violation.

But, I'm using the case play where A1 dribbles, stops, throws the ball off his own backboard, then starts another dribble (legal play) as my justification.

Case book play 4.15.4SitC(c) is the one that Bob is referencing.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

the "try" aspect just ain't relevant when it's used to determine whether a "3" was scored or not, but it is is relevant when it comes to determining whether a back court violation occurs or not.

Well, no duh. (Can you tell I have a pre-teen daughter?) But what IS the same is that you're considering it a try, regardless of the thrower's intent. Same thing with the 3-point basket.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Well, no duh. (Can you tell I have a pre-teen daughter?) But what IS the same is that you're considering it a try, regardless of the thrower's intent. Same thing with the 3-point basket.

OK, I get you now.

A pre-teen daughter, eh? I'll bet you have a dog too. I can tell just from your posts that you're probably an animal lover as well as a devoted father.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

OK, I get you now.

A pre-teen daughter, eh? I'll bet you have a dog too. I can tell just from your posts that you're probably an animal lover...

Yeahbut he stopped that when the ASPCA took him to court and got an injunction...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yeahbut he stopped that when the ASPCA took him to court and got an injunction...

OmyGod......


When I said "animal lover", I really had no idea.

I changed my mind. He can't be a Yankees fan. He has to be a BoSox fan.

Shoulda known......