| M&M Guy |
Fri Jun 08, 2007 09:12am |
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.
|
