Backcourt violation?

[Adam]

I alluded to this previously, but there is another case where we have to determine if it was a try. A1 dribbles up the court and picks up his dribble just past the division line. He attempts an alleyoop pass to A2 towards the rim, but instead hits the rim (and only the rim) causing the ball to bounce directly back towards A1, who takes 4 steps before recovering it.
If his throw isn't a try, it's a violation when he touches the ball next. If it is a try, then he's got a new dribble and everything.

[cmathews]

in my game it is a try.....if it hits the rim or the board. The fed doesn't want us reading minds, that is why they put the rule in that says if the ball is thrown from outside the three point line it is 3 pts. Previous to this you could make it 2 pts if you didn't think it was a try. Don't go looking for trouble, it will find us on its own LOL

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by cmathews

in my game it is a try.....if it hits the rim or the board. The fed doesn't want us reading minds, that is why they put the rule in that says if the ball is thrown from outside the three point line it is 3 pts. Previous to this you could make it 2 pts if you didn't think it was a try. Don't go looking for trouble, it will find us on its own LOL

Your logic is faulty. The fed doesn't want us reading minds, yet you have, in essence, read the Fed mind by indicating they meant something they did not write.

Not that this sitch will come up very often, but I am just saying.

edited for spelling

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Your logic is faulty. The fed doesn't want us reading minds, yet you have, in essence, read the Fed mind by indicating they meant something they did not write.

Not that this sitch will come up very often, but I am just saying.

edited for spelling

So, in my situation, are you going to call this kid for a violation?

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, in my situation, are you going to call this kid for a violation?

Y e s

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Your logic is faulty. The fed doesn't want us reading minds, yet you have, in essence, read the Fed mind by indicating they meant something they did not write.

Not that this sitch will come up very often, but I am just saying.

edited for spelling

How so, a kid appears to throw a pass from half court toward the goal where his teammate is running toward the basket on a backdoor cut, and the "pass" goes through the hoop it is 3 pts. A few years ago, you could rule this a two point basket because it wasn't a try, and in order to score 3 pts you had to attempt a try. With that logic, it isn't a reach to say if it hits the apparatus, that it is a try, because if it goes through we are awarding 3 pts.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by cmathews

How so,...pts.

The rule relieves you of judgement when a live ball that is not a try goes through the basket. It doesn't instruct you on what to do when it does not go through the basket. You have decided that fed meant it to apply when it does not go through the basket. Yet fed doesn't say that. You posted that fed doesn't want us to read minds. Yet, in essence, that is what you have done. You have read fed mind to include that was not included or written.

I didn't criticize your interpretation, I only commented that your logic was faulty.

edit in - you caught me Mark. mines to mind and critize to criticize (you didn't mention that one Mark)

[Camron Rust]

The FED has ruled that a ball that goes in from beyond the arc is always scored as 3 points. However, they have NEVER said that it was a try. A try is clearly defined as an attempt to throw the ball in the basket....judgement is still required on that point.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

You posted that fed doesn't want us to read mines. You have read fed mines...

If a HS player has a good "mine", does that make him a good "prospect or" not?

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

The rule relieves you of judgement when a live ball that is not a try goes through the basket. It doesn't instruct you on what to do when it does not go through the basket. You have decided that fed meant it to apply when it does not go through the basket. Yet fed doesn't say that. You posted that fed doesn't want us to read mines. Yet, in essence, that is what you have done. You have read fed mines to include that was not included or written.

I didn't critize your interpretation, I only commented that your logic was faulty.

no my logic is that since you used to have to judge whether it was a try or not to score three points, and they said score it all the time, then anything thrown at your own basket is a try.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by cmathews

no my logic is that since you used to have to judge whether it was a try or not to score three points, and they said score it all the time, then anything thrown at your own basket is a try.

You might want to put some limitations on that, seems most passes into the paint would qualify. That would make for some very poor shooting percentages, (edit in later) and lots of opportunities to go get the ball and dribble again.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by cmathews

no my logic is that since you used to have to judge whether it was a try or not to score three points, and they said score it all the time, then anything thrown at your own basket is a try.

Not discussing your logic, too fluid for me.

A1 with ball, A1 tries or passes, can A1 get the ball and dribble or not? I don't recall a case play or rule including any verbiage about whether the ball hits the rim or not altering either sitch. It is all judgement (unless A1 has a dribble left).