Thought provoking back court question.

[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.