Since the rule is effectively telling us to consider the thrown ball a try by counting it a 3, consistency would suggest that the opportunity for the two alternatives to be a 3 point basket would end with similar, if not the same, criteria.

If we were to treat a try and a throw differently, as you're suggesting is the case, we'd be back in the same boat as before the rule was changed...we just relocated the dilemma. For a ball that is deflected into the goal after dropping below the rim, you must (with your claim) decide if it was a try or not. If it is a try, you're agreeing it is a two (case 4.41.4b). However, you're also asserting that if it is not a try, that it will be a 3 (5.2.1c).

Hmmm....that can't be right. That is exacly why the rule was changed at all....to remove the need to decide try/non-try when the thrown ball might have been a try. It never intended to turn an obvious pass into a 3 pointer. I'm claiming an interpretation that treats the result the same whether it is a try or not...precisely the purpose of the rule change.

4-41-4: The try ends when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful.....

5-2-2: ......any other goal from the field counts two points.......


If I was already certain that the throw was not going into the basket before it was touched by the defender, the try had ended, thus, no three.

This situation now becomes "any other goal from the field," thus, two points.

The word certain is the key, is it not? This, like countless other calls, comes down to judgment. This is different than the ally-oop that went into the basket, where judgment of shot or pass was based on the nature of the release, the fact that he yelled, "Here ya go, Yao!" or whatever. I personally think this rule change was a good one, but do not believe it covers the situation here.

The central point of the discussion is not whether or not this is a try. All agree that it was not. The OP even stated that it was a pass.

In short, you are not framing the question correctly. You have compared cases A and B, but you should be looking at cases B and C. You have argued that it is not a try (case A), but rather is any other goal from the field (case B).

What you need to be discussing is whether this action constitutes (case C) "A ... thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc" which counts as three points or "any other goal from the field" which counts for two points (case B).

Now what would be your basis for choosing between those two? Which one you pick determines how many points are scored.

<font></font>

Thanks, Scrappy.

Can I call this one QED now?

Beats me. What are you QED'ing? I haven't chimed in on this because I think it's really just messed up in the book. The case play 4.41.4B flat-out contradicts rule 5-2-1. If you made me guess, I believe the rules committee wants the case play to have priority and that 5-2-1 is simply poorly written.

However, as written, the scenario in the original post of this thread is scored as three points.

I've always taken that comment to be the intent of the rule change - to take the official's judgement out of these types of plays. Whether there is a try or not is irrelevant because the new rule includes a pass from outside the 3-point arc as something that can score three points.

I definately agree that there's a conflict. Maybe this will be addressed by the time we get our 2011-2012 rulebooks.

Precisely....the comment on the rule change directly addresses the situation where the thrown ball might have been a try or might not...no judgement needed now. It was not at all intended to cover a skip pass that was going no where near the basket that gets redirected towards the basket.

I'm probably beating a dead horse, but my only question on the above is: how do you know? Where is it specified that is what they intended? If it was, wouldn't 5.2.1(c) give the same (or similar) wording as to when a shot or try ends, even though it's not a try?

And, I'll ask again, how much of a "deflection" is now considered a "re-direction"? Any time a shot is tipped by the defender, it is deflected, and technically, re-directed. Or, is there an amount of deflection that now becomes a re-direction? Are they two separate terms, defined differently? So, if A1 shoots outside the arc, B1 jumps from inside the arc and tips the shot, it should now be a 2-point basket because it was redirected? Of course not, because the rule and cases specifically say it is still a 3. The same with the OP; according to the case it is a 3, whether or not we agree with it.

Think about the intent of the rule.

What was intended in 5-2-1 was for a defender immediately touching the ball just after release with the ball still going up and toward the basket, and taking the was the defender inside or outside the arch out of the equation.

Now it doesn't matter by rule if that is a try or thrown ball, it's a live ball from behind the arch entering the basket, because the touching did not change the try or thrown balls trajectory toward the basket.

In the case in the OP, you have a live ball entering the basket, but it in no way meets the intent of 5-2-1, IMO.

It calls for a little common sense on our parts...a try/throw that is heading up, gets touched and continues heading up is very different than a try/throw that is 7 feet high, heading down and then gets touched and goes 11 feet high and in the basket.;)

That's just it - it's your opinion. (Mine too, actually.) But that's not how the rule and case read. In fact, the OP follows exactly the requirements of both the rule and the the case play. So we have to abide by what it says, not what we think it should mean.

Well, until those mysterious rules-makers tell us otherwise, we have to go by what they've said so far. And they haven't given us that distinction. We can't always use the "common sense" line to justify calling something different than what is stated.

The comment posted earlier:

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.

has already told us their thinking and intent....they were going after a ball that was initially thrown towards the basket that may or may not have been a try....one that required an officials judgment to determine if it was 3 or 2 simply based on whether the official felt the thrower was attempting to shot or not...mind reading required.

It was changed to cover those cases where the throw had a possibility of entering the basket on it's own. It was NOT meant to cover balls that were thrown with no chance of entering the basket but for another player causing it to go towards the basket.

You're reading too much into the rule. Take the simple case and the comments on why it was changed. Don't complicate it by a rule that is not immediately related....meant to cover a different situation altogether (a defender trying to block a 3-point shot having jumped from just inside the arc).

Not every rule is meant to be combined with every other rule. Many are in place to address specific situations. When two of these appear to overlap, it is imperitive that the "right" result be obtained by common sense, not by a convolving two rules that were never meant to be considered together. The rule book doesn't try to comprehend all possible combinations and permutations that the rules can be combined, it only attempts to address the 99% of the most common combinations. If it did, the book would be 10x the size and completely undigestable. We're on our own with the last 1%.

But there's no exemption for this sort of scenario.

I agree that that's what we should do (and what 4.41 suggests, if we think that takes precedent), but the point of that rule change was to take our common sense judgement away and simply call everything from long-range a 3.

I might respectfully suggest that's what you're doing. By including statements such as "no chance of going in the basket", "obvious pass", etc., you are adding things that aren't included in the rule or case. Using your logic, than any tipped 3-point shot that goes in should only be counted as 2, because since it was tipped and re-directed, and then went in, the original shot was obviously off-line to begin with. But we don't have to make that judgement.
Let's check 5-2-1:
"A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points." Check.
"A ball that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown." Nope, none of that happened.
Now let's check 5.2.1(c):
"A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by:... (b) B1 who is in the two-point area; Check.
"The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket." Check.
"RULING: In (a) and (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line." Check.

What am I reading into it?