A few situations/questions

[Y2Koach]

thanks for the great discussion, everyone.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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.

Part of the rule was also used to talk about a ball going toward the goal, that is touched and continues toward the goal.

In my way of thinking what they did, and did poorly, was just tell us that a partially blocked try/thrown ball from behind the line still counts 3 if the defender touches it regardless of if the defender jumps from behind or in front of the 3 pt line. It just clarifies that it is still a try after being touched. Since we have no judgment, pass or try, it falls under the rules covering a try.

Which means that a thrown ball that is below rim level with obviously no chance of going in, is no longer a try...again, no judgment so all balls going toward the basket are trys...so in the OP the ball, with no chance of going in, is now just a live ball going through the basket. Touching the defender is no different at that point than the ball touching the floor and bouncing in.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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 judgment.
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?

You're taking cases/rules that are targeted for a very specific situations and applying to to something completely different and coming up with a completely unintended result.

5.2.1c (in some form) has been there a long time and is there to say that a defender who gets his/her fingertips on a 3-point try doesn't change the status of the attempt just because they were inside the arc. That's all, nothing more. It has never applied after the ball was in a downward flight as that would either be GT or a rebound. It never was used to turn a pass into a try if that deflection ended up in the basket.

Also, please define thrown ball. When does it begin? When does it end? Taking only what is in the book, you can't define it. It's not there. Being in a context with try and tap and in a case were we're considering a thrown ball to be treated like a tap/try, I assert that the intent is that a thrown ball ceases to be thrown ,with regards to this rule, in the same manner as the other items in the list. That is both consistent and logical with all the cases we have.

Consider this patently absurd example:

A1 throws the ball towards the basket, it goes in. B3, as the ball drops through the net, taps the ball to B1 for a throwin. B1 taps it back in to B3 who taps it into A's basket. 2 or 3???? By your claim, it would have to be a three since after A1 threw the ball, it never hit the floor, a teammate of A, or an official. B3 and B1 repeat the cycle, adding 3 points to A's total each time the ball fall through the hoop. Hmmmmm.

Are you sure you want to continue with such a literal interpretation of the rule? Or do you think there are a few elements that are assumed to be obvious.

At some point, the thrown ball ceases to be a thrown ball. It doesn't take hitting the floor, and official, or a teammate to do it. The rule was written for a very specific case...and only that case.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Part of the rule was also used to talk about a ball going toward the goal, that is touched and continues toward the goal.

I believe Scrapper posted the original Clarification, and there is no mention about the ball going towards a goal. Maybe that was mentioned in the section on a try?

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Since we have no judgment, pass or try, it falls under the rules covering a try.

That's an assumption not covered in the rule or case play. If that was the case, why wouldn't the rule or case state that? In fact, if a "thrown ball" has the same rules covering it as a try, if A1 is fouled, would you award 3 FT's if the ball doesn't go in the basket?

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Touching the defender is no different at that point than the ball touching the floor and bouncing in.

That is covered specifically in the rule - touching the floor is the same as touching a teammate; touching a defender is not included.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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.

Even the "try" that falls short of the rim, hits a defender's head, and bounces in? Counter to case 4.41.4b?? The one that says it's a two.

If your assertion were correct (and it's not), you would have to determine if A1 put up a try or throw since 4.41.4b says a try is a 2 when it bounces in off of the defender but you're saying it is a 3 if it is a thrown ball when it bounces in off of a defender (since it didn't hit the floor/official/teammate). Precisely the point of judgement that the rule was to remove.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I believe Scrapper posted the original Clarification, and there is no mention about the ball going towards a goal. Maybe that was mentioned in the section on a try?

It was pretty clearly implied. How else would there be confusion as to whether it was a try or a thrown ball (pass)? Has anyone ever had trouble or confusion with a ball throw toward the sideline? Did anyone ever think a pass to a player in the corner was a try? No. That's the entire basis for this rule...a ball that leaves the offensive players hands such that could be either a pass or a try but was inconclusive.

They were not thinking of a Jordan/Bird commercial when making the rule.

(Trying to catch my post count up to Jurrassic's all in one week and in one thread!!! )

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I believe Scrapper posted the original Clarification, and there is no mention about the ball going towards a goal. Maybe that was mentioned in the section on a try?


That's an assumption not covered in the rule or case play. If that was the case, why wouldn't the rule or case state that? In fact, if a "thrown ball" has the same rules covering it as a try, if A1 is fouled, would you award 3 FT's if the ball doesn't go in the basket?


That is covered specifically in the rule - touching the floor is the same as touching a teammate; touching a defender is not included.

Okay just how is a shot/thrown ball from the 3 pt line that is touched by the defender who is also behind the 3 pt line going to go in the basket if the ball doesn't continue toward the basket?

For crying out loud this isn't rocket science. There are plenty of rules that require us to use some common sense. If we were to have a specific example and case play for every possible occurrence, the rule and case book would look like the NY city phone book.

It is blatantly clear that the rule committee wants us to consider a thrown ball the same as a try, thus any thrown ball ends the same way a try does. The specific case play for 5-2-1 deals with a try/thrown ball that is immediately touched...you know on the way up, going toward the basket, where it is still a try from behind the 3 pt line.

The play in the OP is a thrown ball, that is the same as a try, from behind the 3 pt line that had come down short of the basket with no chance of going in. At that point, if it hits the floor, a teammate, an official, or a defender it doesn't matter because the original thrown ball/try ended when it was clear it wasn't going in. Any subsequent touching doesn't matter and if the ball goes in the basket at that point, it is a live ball passing through the basket for 2 points.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Even the "try" that falls short of the rim, hits a defender's head, and bounces in? Counter to case 4.41.4b?? The one that says it's a two.

If your assertion were correct (and it's not), you would have to determine if A1 put up a try or throw since 4.41.4b says a try is a 2 when it bounces in off of the defender but you're saying it is a 3 if it is a thrown ball when it bounces in off of a defender (since it didn't hit the floor/official/teammate). Precisely the point of judgement that the rule was to remove.

That is why I believe that Dexter and M&M are incorrect about the application of this rule. As long as 4.41.4SitB remains in the book, it is impossible to use their checklist way of thinking. Simply because that play meets all of the items in the checklist, yet the NFHS still says that the goal is only worth TWO points. They have no answer for that.

Furthermore, I agree with this thought:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

It is a very logical and common sense application of the rules, which fits with BOTH of the current Case Book plays. (Which should still be clarified!)

[blindzebra]

I can just see M&M Guy trying to explain to coach B why a pass from behind the 3 pt line in the corner that hit a defender standing above the FT line in the back of the head and then went in the basket will be a 3 based on rule 5-2-1.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I can just see M&M Guy trying to explain to coach B why a pass from behind the 3 pt line in the corner that hit a defender standing above the FT line in the back of the head and then went in the basket will be a 3 based on rule 5-2-1.

The rule is the rule.

I don't know how M&M would handle it but I know how I would.

"Coach, that's the rule and that's how we're doing it today - by the rule. If you don't like it call our assignor to complain. This discussion is now closed."

It's not really that hard.

:shrug:

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

The rule is the rule.

I don't know how M&M would handle it but I know how I would.

"Coach, that's the rule and that's how we're doing it today - by the rule. If you don't like it call our assignor to complain. This discussion is now closed."

It's not really that hard.

:shrug:

Unfortunately that isn't the proper application of the rule and you darn well know it isn't...but it would just kill you to agree with me and Nevada, so you'd rather support what isn't intended by the rule and be wrong in both the proper application and in plain old common sense.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Unfortunately that isn't the proper application of the rule and you darn well know it isn't...but it would just kill you to agree with me and Nevada, so you'd rather support what isn't intended by the rule and be wrong in both the proper application and in plain old common sense.

errr, uhm...yeah....well...so you got that "them against us" going on pretty good I see.

Did someone miss a dose today? Maybe your buddy Nevada can get it for ya?

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

errr, uhm...yeah....well...so you got that "them against us" going on pretty good I see.

Did someone miss a dose today? Maybe your buddy Nevada can get it for ya?

YAWN

Typical, funny talking buddy system when you are part of the forum clique.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Consider this patently absurd example:

A1 throws the ball towards the basket, it goes in. B3, as the ball drops through the net, taps the ball to B1 for a throwin. B1 taps it back in to B3 who taps it into A's basket. 2 or 3???? By your claim, it would have to be a three since after A1 threw the ball, it never hit the floor, a teammate of A, or an official. B3 and B1 repeat the cycle, adding 3 points to A's total each time the ball fall through the hoop. Hmmmmm.

Are you sure you want to continue with such a literal interpretation of the rule? Or do you think there are a few elements that are assumed to be obvious.

That's non sequitur for two reasons. First, the ball becomes dead in the intervening time period. Second, 5.2.1 clearly states that A must throw the ball for 3 points to be scored at A's basket.

Let's also not forget 5.2.1 Situation B, which is the traditional "alley-oop" play. The ruling states "A ball that is thrown into a team's own goal from behind the three-point arc scores three points, regardless of whether the thrown ball was an actual try for goal."

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If your assertion were correct (and it's not), you would have to determine if A1 put up a try or throw since 4.41.4b says a try is a 2 when it bounces in off of the defender but you're saying it is a 3 if it is a thrown ball when it bounces in off of a defender (since it didn't hit the floor/official/teammate). Precisely the point of judgement that the rule was to remove.

As long as 4.41.4B remains in the casebook, that's precisely what I'm saying. I must admit, the irony is quite sharp.