It's just another way of saying a 2/3 vote by the membership. But you knew this and are just going out of your way to be annoying. Now you know why you could never muster the required approval.

:rolleyes:

:p

Well, there also is that Boston Red Sox thingy too........

Now why would I do a dexter-hole thing like that? :D

1. The rules need to be cleaned up, we have countless examples of poorly written rules.

2. Yes, it isn't specifically laid out.

3. But it is clear that there isn't supposed to be a judgment between a try and a throw, so logically, a throw should end the same way a try does.

4. Logic also says that the defensive touch is talking about a defender attempting to block the try/throw immediately not touching it 15 feet away.

5. Common sense tells you that the rules intent isn't to count 3 on a pass from outside the arc, away from the basket that strikes a defender and goes in the basket.

6. Taking common sense, logical progression and the fact we have a case play in place that says we can count it as a 2, why would anyone hold onto 5-2-1 and rule a 3? :confused:

Again, my point is you are reading into the wording of the rule and case play; I am taking it as written.

Why is it no one wants to answer my question: if a try and a throw are considered the same thing, if A1 is fouled behind the arc in the act of throwing the ball, should A1 be awarded 3 FT's?

It depends, on where the throw is going now doesn't it.;)

As for the case play, it talks about B1 being inside and outside the 3 point area touching the try/throw and it going in. Add it up and it's talking about an on-ball defender...as if A1 v B1 wasn't enough.

Also to take it farther, it talks about a thrown ball being touched by B1 outside the arc going in too, so we counting 3 points on a skip pass from one wing outside the arc that hits B2, outside the arc, on the other wing that goes into the basket a 3? After all you have a thrown ball from the 3 point area contacting a defender also in the 3 point area going in.

Why?

Sounds logical. But it doesn't say that, and that's my point. It is simply an assumption on your part. But what if the on-ball defender tipped a pass instead of a shot, and it goes in? How is that different than another defender 20 ft. away tipping the same pass, and it goes in? Where is that distinction made?

Unfortunately, that is what the rule says - it's worth 3 points. I would love for them to come out with a case play that gives some more direction, such as the OP, where there is a pass into a post player and the defender tips the pass into the basket; it is worth only 2 points because of this reason or that. Until they do, the rule says it's 3.

Why?

Because a throw toward the basket, is by rule the same as a try, a throw from outside the 3 point line away from the basket isn't, and yes I am aware that the rules don't spell it out for me that way, but hey I'll stick with using a little bit of common sense and logic to clean up what the rules makers didn't spell out in that NY City phone book sized rules/case book some seem to need.;)

:D

I know I should just give up, but I'm feelin' ornery today. :D

How far apart is a throw "away from the basket" vs. "towards a basket"?

Go back and look at the comment Scrapper posted back in post #49. It even specifically uses the word "pass". That even eliminates any confusion as to whether we're talking about a "throw" being the same as a "try". I'm not ignoring the comment, I'm using it as my basis.

THREE-POINT BASKET CLARIFIED (5-2-1): Three points shall be awarded for any ball thrown, passed or shot from beyond the three-point arc that passes through a team's own basket. While in most situations a "try" can be differentiated from a pass, to eliminate possible confusion this change should help to clarify by not requiring judgment as to whether the ball in flight was a pass or try.

Then you are completely misreading it. It quite clearly says that this rule removes from the equation all judegment about what the thrown ball is. Yet, your conclusion is to required that very judgement. That is the primary error in your interpretation.

Huh? What in the Clarification am I mis-reading? :confused: Where am I saying there is judgement needed? I thought I was saying just the opposite - any pass, throw, or shot that originates from outside the arc counts as 3 points if it goes in the basket, even if it touches a defender that happens to be within the arc. There is no judgement at all as to whether a "try" has occured. You, Nevada, and bz are adding the assumption that the thrown ball has characteristics of a shot or try - has to be "thrown towards the basket", "if it's below the rim when it's contacted it would only be 2 points", "if it's on it's downward flight it must be GT", and so on. The Clarification specifically adds the word "pass" to it, which tells me 3 points can be scored on a pass, which does not carry the characteristics of a shot.

So, is this statement true: "Any pass that originates from outside the arc, and is tipped by the defense inside the arc, and goes through the basket, counts as 3 points"? According to the 5-2-1, the case play, and the Clarification, it is. And, as well, the OP.

But that doesn't support your justification - nowhere does the rule say "just treat a throw exactly the same as a try" it just says that we don't have to differentiate between a throw and a try.

Yep, the OP is definitely a pass. That is why 5-2-1 doesn't apply. That is my main point. You must consider the NFHS rules as a whole when making a ruling on this play. You can't just focus on a single rule such as 5-2-1 and go solely by what it says. That will lead you to the wrong conclusion. :)

It is quite clear that a throw and a try are NOT the same. The NFHS put in rule 5-2-1 in order to give the offense the benefit of the doubt in cases in which the official could not clearly distinguish a try from a pass. I believe that you have been misplacing the emphasis in the sentence from the comment on that rule change. I have underline the part that I think is of paramount importance.
"While in most situations a "try" can be differentiated from a pass, to eliminate possible confusion this change should help to clarify by not requiring judgment as to whether the ball in flight was a pass or try."

It is my opinion that the NFHS never intended this rule to be used for cases in which the player was CLEARLY PASSING the ball such as many of the examples given by bz and the one in the OP. However, it should be applied in those situations in which the official isn't sure whether the player was passing or trying for goal, and thinks "well, he might have been shooting."

Sorry, I didn't mean to avoid your question, which btw I think is a good one.
My answer is that if the official deems that the player was clearly passing/throwing the ball while NOT making an attempt to score, then awarding FTs would be unjustified. The penalty section of Rule 10 clearly states that free throws are only awarded if "fouled in the act of shooting and try or tap is unsuccessful" and 4-41-1 defines act of shooting to involve a try, not a throw or pass.
Of course, that doesn't change my position on the play in the OP. It merely means that this play is one in which the official can clearly deem that the player was passing and thus it lies outside the scope of 5-2-1.


Now I don't agree with that point because I believe that you are taking a rule out of context and attempting to apply it to a situation for which it was not intended. Not surprisingly this yields bizarre results.

Here's a play for you. Alter the OP such that the ball merely bounces around on the ring and does NOT go in, but while the ball is up there B2 fouls A2, who is still outside the 3pt line. Are you going to award him 3 FT? Let's even say that A2 jumped in the air to make the pass and A2 fouled him before he returned to the floor. When does the ball become dead on this play?

You can't pick and choose which parts of the rule, casebook play and comment suit you. A throw - whether we think it definately is a pass, definately isn't a pass or we're not quite sure - from beyond the 3 point arc scores 3 points.

No - he'll get 1 and 1 or 2 shots if appropriate, but there's (as we all agree) no try here.

Assuming you mean B2 fouls A2, the ball is dead when the foul occurs. No continuation, no FTs unless we're in the bonus.

I think your logic on both of these examples is flawed, though. We don't award free throws here because there was no try. The rules allow us to judge the difference between a try/tap and a pass, it's just that that decision is immaterial when it comes to whether a basket should be counted as a 2 or a 3.

Then explain this:

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1's three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)

This says that if it is a try that falls short and is deflected into the basket it is only two points. There is no ambiguity...it is a two. You can't ignore that. You are saying that if it were not a try but a pass or thrown ball, that it would be three points with the exact same deflection. You have to decide if it was a try or not... judgment required (under your interpretation). Unless you're going to completely ignore 4.41.4b when a try fall short and is tipped in by a defender.

NO, it is not always true (but sometimes is). Given that 4.41.4 is unambiguous and the clarifying comment gives the indication that the they are to be scored the same without regard to whether it is a try or a pass, it can only be a two unless it left the throwers hands in such a way that it could have gone in without the defender's involvement.


Let's try this a different way...

A ball, as it leaves a throwers hands either as a pass or a try. The moment it leaves the hands, it either has a chance of going in or it doesn't. If it does, it will 3 if it originated from behind the line. If it doesn't, the amount to score is not a relevant question. Should a defender get involved in the play, the touching by the defender doesn't change the status of the ball with regards to the amount scored. If the ball was not on a potentially scoring trajectory...a 0 point trajectory...the scoring opportunity for that throw is over, it can not become a 3 by the defense directing the ball into the basket. Any new direction that takes the ball on a path towards the basket is a new action.

Really? Then why isn't this 3 points? :D

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1's three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)


My answer is what is written on page 10 of the rules book.
"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation."

5-2-1 is not intented to apply to this situation. That wasn't the purpose of its creation.
That's the best explanation that I can provide, Mark. :)

The clarification says exactly that "IF" the throw, pass or shot enters the teams basket.

Ok, since I'm not up all night like some people just thinking about basketball and rules, I didn't get a chance to respond until this morning.

The main point of contention appears to be what is the intent of 5-2-1. I believe what they are trying to say is points are scored if the ball goes through the basket, without regard to the intent on how it went through. And, in spite of the 37 pages in this thread, I think we are all actually in agreement of that deep down. Think about it - if A1 passes the ball, and it bounces off B1's head (or even A2's head) and goes through the basket, we do not wave off the points because A1 or A2 weren't actually shooting, right? Of course not. That is the purpose of this rule - we do not have to judge whether there is really an intent to score, such as a shot, try, or tap, but points can be scored "by accident". Also, 3 points can scored "by accident" if there is no shot, but the ball is released on a throw or pass from outside the arc and still goes through the basket. This reasoning is further clarified by the comment - the officials do not have to judge intent to award points.

This does not mean we have to <B>ignore</B> intent for other rules purposes. That's why I asked about A1 getting fouled - we still need to judge whether it's a shot to determine FT's, airborne shooter rules, possible goaltending, and, oh yes, whether 4.41.4(b) applies. :) So, if it is a try, then the try ends according to the rules, and any subsequent tap, bounce, etc. is a new act, and subject to where the tap/bounce originated. If we judge it to be a pass and not a shot, then all the applicable rules apply to passes as well. So, iow, the more I think about it, the more I don't think the two case plays are in conflict at all.

very well said

Quiet, you rabble-rouser. :p