Is This an Attempt?

[cshs81]

Shooter goes up for a 3 pt shot. As he's going up and raising his arms to shoot, the ball goes up in the air and behind him. It ultimately bounces to the backcourt where the shooter tracks it down and is the first to touch.

Do you call it an attempt and, thus, no backcourt violation?

[Mark Padgett]

Let me pose one to you that's just as hard to answer without seeing it. If, in your instance, he would have been fouled after he started to raise his arms "to shoot" and the rest played out as you described, would you call a shooting foul?

Answer this and you have the answer to your question.

[cshs81]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Let me pose one to you that's just as hard to answer without seeing it. If, in your instance, he would have been fouled after he started to raise his arms "to shoot" and the rest played out as you described, would you call a shooting foul?

Answer this and you have the answer to your question.

I did not see the player either. I'm simply going off of a description. However, as I see it in my mind with the player rising to shoot the ball and due to the fact that I don't see an indication of him trying to pass, I'd call it a shooting foul had he been fouled.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Let me pose one to you that's just as hard to answer without seeing it. If, in your instance, he would have been fouled after he started to raise his arms "to shoot" and the rest played out as you described, would you call a shooting foul?

Answer this and you have the answer to your question.

That's not a good way to answer that particular question. Just because the player was going to try for goal doesn't mean that he actually did. If he lost the ball before sending it in flight towards the goal, even though he had been in the act of shooting, then the rules say that team control hasn't ended. Team control ends when the ball is in flight during a try for goal.

There was an NFHS interp a couple of years ago that sheds some light on this.
2003-04 NFHS Interps
SITUATION 5:
At the top of the key, A1 beats B1 off the dribble, reaches
the free-throw line, and pulls up for a jump shot. At the apex
of the jump and before the ball is released, B2 comes from the
side and swats the ball out of A1’s hands. The ball goes
behind A1, deflects off A2 and into the backcourt, where A3 is
the first to touch it. RULING: A backcourt violation shall be
called. Team control had continued for Team A because the try
ended before the ball was in flight. (4-12-3a; 4-40-3,4;
9-9-1)

I have the situation in the original post as a backcourt violation.

[cshs81]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's not a good way to answer that particular question. Just because the player was going to try for goal doesn't mean that he actually did. If he lost the ball before sending it in flight towards the goal, even though he had been in the act of shooting, then the rules say that team control hasn't ended. Team control ends when the ball is in flight during a try for goal.

There was an NFHS interp a couple of years ago that sheds some light on this.
2003-04 NFHS Interps
SITUATION 5:
At the top of the key, A1 beats B1 off the dribble, reaches
the free-throw line, and pulls up for a jump shot. At the apex
of the jump and before the ball is released, B2 comes from the
side and swats the ball out of A1’s hands. The ball goes
behind A1, deflects off A2 and into the backcourt, where A3 is
the first to touch it. RULING: A backcourt violation shall be
called. Team control had continued for Team A because the try
ended before the ball was in flight. (4-12-3a; 4-40-3,4;
9-9-1)

I have the situation in the original post as a backcourt violation.

I can see how your example is a violation. However, there is one difference in the play I described: the defender never made contact with the ball. Does that change anything in your mind?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by cshs81

I can see how your example is a violation. However, there is one difference in the play I described: the defender never made contact with the ball. Does that change anything in your mind?

If he didn't release the ball on a try for goal, but instead the ball slipped out of his hands and went backwards, then it wasn't a try--it was a fumble--and thus should be called a violation.

[cshs81]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If he didn't release the ball on a try for goal, but instead the ball slipped out of his hands and went backwards, then it wasn't a try--it was a fumble--and thus should be called a violation.

So a ball that obviously slips from the shooters hands is never a try, correct?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by cshs81

So a ball that obviously slips from the shooters hands is never a try, correct?

That would be correct. You will have to make a judgment on whether he shot it or it slipped from his hands, but the definition of a fumble is quite clear.

4-21 "A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player's grasp."

[sseltser]

Couldn't that also be a travel that occurs at the same time (assuming it was a jump shot)?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Couldn't that also be a travel that occurs at the same time (assuming it was a jump shot)?

NO! Traveling occurs while a player is holding the ball. A player may always recover a fumble without violating.

[Adam]

The only way you can call this play a travel is if the jump "shooter" purposefully passes rather than shoots, and then retrieves the pass.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The only way you can call this play a travel is if the jump "shooter" purposefully passesstarts a dribble rather than shoots, and then retrieves the passball.

What you wrote might confuse a newer official or a nonofficial looking to understand the rule. It wasn't wrong, but just unclear because this "pass" turns into a dribble under these circumstances because it meets the definition of such.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What you wrote might confuse a newer official or a nonofficial looking to understand the rule. It wasn't wrong, but just unclear because this "pass" turns into a dribble under these circumstances because it meets the definition of such.

Good point, and the violation would be for lifting the pivot foot without proceeding to shoot, pass, or call timeout. And by retrieving the pass first, the pass becomes a dribble. It sounds much more complicated when I read it out loud as opposed to seeing the play.

[Nevadaref]

Yep, and for the benefit of anyone interested:

4-44-3 . . . After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
b. If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
c. The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What you wrote might confuse a newer official or a nonofficial looking to understand the rule. It wasn't wrong, but just unclear because this "pass" turns into a dribble under these circumstances because it meets the definition of such.

The situation being discussed above is a judgment call using almost the same criteria anyway. If you judge it a try, then you can legally go into the backcourt and get the ball. If you judge it a fumble or a pass, you can't. You also can't definitively say that it always will be a backcourt violation too imo.

It's no different than casebook play 4.44.3SitB. How do you determine in that case whether the ball was fumbled or deliberately dropped? Answer----> judgment.