Which all comes down to the intent of the rule...we are supposed to view a thrown ball in the same light as a try. Meaning the rules governing a try also cover a thrown ball.

So in this case where it is clear the ball isn't going into the basket BEFORE it is touched, ends the original throw/try and 5-2-1 no longer applies.

Works for me.

And if basketball adopts a protest rule a la baseball, I'd be more than happy to be overturned on protest (since that's the way I think the rule should read). In my game, in the heat of the moment, I'm giving the TD signal and we're moving on.

Except nothing in the rulebook says that.

What is missed here that is obvious to me is Fed. is saying a throw from behind the 3-pt arc could be considered a shot because and only because it is so far away. You may have to throw the ball to get the distance (behind the half court line) as opposed to a shot. What the Fed. didn't consider was a thrown ball to a team mate accidentally knocked in by the defense. This is not, imo, what the Fed. wants and they need to revisit this scenario.

A thrown ball to a teammate from outside the arc that's reflected by the defense inside the arc should not be counted as 3 because it was not a try for goal. How do you determine? Referees judgment. If it was a try for goal, that's different. If it was a pass to a teammate, award 2 points.

The ones that are arguing this is 3 pt goal, don't really understand basketball and the intent behind the rules. They are caught up in the words in the rulebook and it has therefore clouded their judgment. Paralysis from analysis, can't see the forest for the trees.

Where does it say that? If that is true, then if A1 is fouled behind the arc, and is throwing the ball, then would you award 3 FT's?

Where does it say that in 5-2-1? Anywhere?

Again, as I have stated before, I agree with both bz and Camron in theory. It doesn't seem right that A1 could throw a hard pass of the back of B1's head, it bounces up and through the basket, and that would be worth 3 points. But there is no definitive direction in the rules other than what is actually written, and as 5.2.1(c) is written, there is no distinction as to where the defender touches the ball, other than to say they are inside the arc. To say there is a distinction between above and below the rim, or the ball wasn't originally heading towards the basket, etc. is making an assumption, or reading into the rule something that isn't there. Until the Fed. issues a clarification, the OP is 3 points.

Actually, I do have an answer for that - the NFHS says it worth 3 points if it meets all the items in the checklist. You're the one that's saying it's worth 2.

I agree with that!

Rules reference, please?

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Most of the time the words in the rulebook actually clear things up and make judgement easier. It's the ones that go on "instinct" and what they think the intent and purpose should be that find their judgement clouded. A wise man once told me that.

I agree with this statement, but in this particular case. The word is unclear and the meaning confusing. Having a written word for every scenario that could possibly happen is tough on the rule makers. Even in life, not everything that is right is legislated at which point we are left to defend or act, if you will, on our belief to what is right.

What is right here is the intent and purpose of the rule. The intent is not to reward 3 points to a non-shot. I don't believe that to my heart and will never believe that is the intent of the rule. We're just left with a situation that is not explained in words in the rulebook. You guys found it. I imagine there's probably more but don't confuse the lack of a written caseplay to be that of law. Good discussion on the merits of this rule and this forum at it's best.

So? According the the proponents of counting it a 3, the ONLY way the opportunity to score 3 ends is when the ball touches a teammate, official, or floor, since that is ALL that 5.2.1 says can end the opportunity. Period. It says nothing about a dead ball, it says nothing about the other team catching or controlling the ball. Are you now saying that there are ways for the thrown ball to end aside from those three things? Perhaps all the same things that end a try???

Even when the explicit purpose of the rule, as stated in black and white, is to remove the need for that very judegement?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



No, my man, I'm talking about what the NFHS says in that specific case book play. You have to admit that the action described in 4.41.4SitB meets all the items in your checklist (the one made to help apply rule 5-2-1 to a play), yet the NFHS ruling (not mine) for the play is that the goal is worth TWO points, not three. So how do you explain that? The only logical conclusion is that there must be something wrong with your checklist approach. My opinion is that it cannot be applied to all situations. It is only appropriate for situations in which the throw could have been considered a try. Otherwise, it should be considered "any other goal from the field" and worth only two points. ;)

Do you understand my position now? :)

I cannot believe this discussion has gone on for 6 pages.

Read 4-41-4: "The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead."

It doesn't matter if it was a try or a throw from behind the arc. What matters is if the referee judges the orignal throw is certain to be unsuccessful. On a throw that originates behind the arc and in touched by a defensive player near the right block (as stated in the OP) you have one of two choices - GT or a throw that is certain will not go through the hoop. If it was not GT then the try has ended by definition. Case 4.41.4 then applies.

To argue 5.2.1 applies over the defintion in 4-41-4 and case play 4.41.4 is irresponsible, you are picking a choosing what you wish to enforce. If you did that in my area, say goodbye to varsity and post season refereeing.

Cases repeated here again for reference.
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)

5.2.1 SITUATION C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: (a) B1 who is in the three-point area; (b) B1 who is in the two-point area; (c) A2 who is in the three-point area; or (d) A2 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. 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. In (c), score three points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred behind the three-point line. In (d), score two points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred in the two-point area.

Actually, I've understood it all along. And, for the most part, I don't disagree with most of your premises.

I still have a couple of questions for you. First, you keep bringing up 4.41.4(b), which has to do specifically with a <B>try</B>. We all agree the OP is <B>not a try</B>. That's how I eliminate that case from consideration. I assume you're making the connection that a "throw" and a "try" are the same because they are listed together 5-2-1. So, since there is no rule book definition of a thrown ball, are you saying that common sense tells us that a thrown ball and a try are the same? If so, you have avoided my question that I've asked a couple of times - if A1 is throwing the ball from behind the arc, and is fouled in the act of throwing the ball, would you award 3 FT's? Are you saying that since "try, tap, or thrown ball from the field" are listed together in 5-2-1, they have the same status and meaning? If so, then do the "floor, teammate inside the arc, and official" all have exactly the same status and meaning, since they are also listed together in the same rule?

The only point I've been making is, as written, the rule states the OP is a 3-point play. Could the Fed. make their intent clearer? Absolutely. But, until they do, I'm not going to assume anything, from possible intent, the definition of a thrown ball, the connection between thrown ball vs. try, etc. I'm just going with what the rule and case play actually say.

The problem is that 5-2-1 makes it irrelevant whether or not the thrown ball is a try.

Ref in PA - I understand what you are saying, but 4-41-2 has to do specifically with the definition of a try: "A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal."

5-2-1 is taking away the judgement of whether or not the player is actually attempting a try in determining whether to award 2 points or 3. If the player is behind the arc when the ball is thrown, the official does not have to determine it is a "try" in order to award 3 points. The obvious example is the alley-oop, where A1 is outside the arc and passing it to A2 for the dunk, A2 misses it, and the ball goes through the basket. It's still 3 points, even though it wasn't a "try".