Thought provoking back court question.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

What part of "IN MY OPINION" did you fail to comprehend, Nevada.

Comprehension 101.

I said that it could be called either. I also said that I, JR, would personally call it a try and NO backcourt violation. I don't have a problem at all with anybody else having a different opinion, and saying that in their 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 judgement call into a non-judgement call though, which is what they are doing.

And your example is a judgement 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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Catawba is saying that the ONLY possible ruling is that the play is a pass. They are saying that there is never any judgement involved.

I'm saying that it could be a pass OR a try depending on each individual official's personal judgement. Then I gave you MY 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.