A few situations/questions

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In 1, why wouldn't it be 3 points? It was a thrown ball from outside the arc, and it was not touched by a teammate.

The rule is for throws that are behind the arch without being touched. A pass that is deflected is an entirely different situation.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule is for throws that are behind the arch without being touched. A pass that is deflected is an entirely different situation.

Peace

I thought the rule said "touched by a teammate inside the arc"?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I thought the rule said "touched by a teammate inside the arc"?

The interpretation is to make clear what to do on an alley oop or errant pass near the basket. This is clearly a pass that deflects into the basket as a result of a defender touching it. This is not quite the same thing if you ask me.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The interpretation is to make clear what to do on an alley oop or errant pass near the basket. This is clearly a pass that deflects into the basket as a result of a defender touching it. This is not quite the same thing if you ask me.

Peace

But, I don't think there is a differentiation between a pass and a shot to award the 3. That's why 5-2-1 clearly states, "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. 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. "

In the case of an alley-oop pass, usually it's a teammate that touches it before it goes in, therefore it would count as 2. But if a defender deflects it, even inside the arc, I believe it is still 3 points.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The interpretation is to make clear what to do on an alley oop or errant pass near the basket. This is clearly a pass that deflects into the basket as a result of a defender touching it. This is not quite the same thing if you ask me.

Peace

I have to disagree, Rut. 5-2-1 and 5.2.1 both state a "thrown ball" with no restriction that the ball needs to be a try or an alley-oop or anywhere near the basket. IIRC, the new rule was put in to eliminate the need for interpretation on the official's part for this exact play. If the ball is released by team A behind the 3 point arc, and goes in with no subsequent touching by A or by the floor, you score 3 points in NFHS.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I thought the rule said "touched by a teammate inside the arc"?

This point has been heavily debated here in the past. There is one camp that says it's a 3 if it was originally thrown from behind the arc no matter the direction of the throw....literal interpretation of the rule group.

There is another camp that knows when and why the rule was added that says it is only 2....intent and purpose group.

I'm in the intent and purpose camp.

The intent and purpose of that entire rule, as was stated when it was changed, was to not require an official to distinguish between a shot and a pass when the thrown ball went into the hoop. Every single case that has ever been published involved a ball thrown in the general vicinity of the basket....alley oop or shot??? Even when deflected, the cases all still involved a ball thrown toward the basket. Never has a case been presented where a ball was thrown away from the basket that was deflected in where the result was 3 points.

If the thrown ball is not at the basket, it is a pass, by definition..."to another player". Even if a defender interferes with the ball, it is a pass. When that defender redirects the ball, it is still a pass. That defender is the player who has tapped the ball into the basket...even accidentally...(the defender's touching of the ball doesn't end a try, however).

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This point has been heavily debated here in the past. There is one camp that says it's a 3 if it was originally thrown from behind the arc no matter the direction of the throw....literal interpretation of the rule group.

There is another camp that knows when and why the rule was added that says it is only 2....intent and purpose group.

I'm in the intent and purpose camp.

The intent and purpose of that entire rule, as was stated when it was changed, was to not require an official to distinguish between a shot and a pass when the thrown ball went into the hoop. Every single case that has ever been published involved a ball thrown in the general vicinity of the basket....alley oop or shot??? Even when deflected, the cases all still involved a ball thrown toward the basket. Never has a case been presented where a ball was thrown away from the basket that was deflected in where the result was 3 points.

If the thrown ball is not at the basket, it is a pass, by definition..."to another player". Even if a defender interferes with the ball, it is a pass. When that defender redirects the ball, it is still a pass. That defender is the player who has tapped the ball into the basket...even accidentally...(the defender's touching of the ball doesn't end a try, however).

I don't really disagree.

In the OP, the pass was thrown in the general direction of the basket (from the corner outside the arc to the post). Why wouldn't it be a 3?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I don't really disagree.

In the OP, the pass was thrown in the general direction of the basket (from the corner outside the arc to the post). Why wouldn't it be a 3?

It wasn't thrown near the basket. It was going near the basket in only two dimensions in a three dimensional world. The defender was solely responsible for causing the ball to go toward the basket. It was no longer a ball thrown by the original thrower but a ball batted into the basket by a defender.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the thrown ball is not at the basket, it is a pass, by definition..."to another player". Even if a defender interferes with the ball, it is a pass. When that defender redirects the ball, it is still a pass. That defender is the player who has tapped the ball into the basket...even accidentally...(the defender's touching of the ball doesn't end a try, however).

But doesn't a pass imply that the ball was thrown? That's the only requirement for this rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

But doesn't a pass imply that the ball was thrown? That's the only requirement for this rule.

When does the ball stop being a thrown ball and take on a new status?

I assert that the ball is no longer a thrown ball when it's direction is substantially changed by a defender or when it clearly will not go in on it's own. See my two examples I just posted to illustrate that very point.

The rules don't actually say but I can be certain that a ball that has rebounded off the front of the rim and is heading directly away from the basket is no longer a thrown ball.

The rule doesn't, as one camp would argue, allow for that...they'd say its a thrown ball until it hits a teammate, floor, or official as the rule, as written, doesn't indicate any other way for the throw to end. As that group interprets the rule, all rebounds (from a throw from behind the arc) that are tapped in by the defense are still a 3.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

When does the ball stop being a thrown ball and take on a new status?

I assert that the ball is no longer a thrown ball when it's direction is substantially changed by a defender or when it clearly will not go in on it's own. See my two examples I just posted to illustrate that very point.

The rules don't actually say but I can be certain that a ball that has rebounded off the front of the rim and is heading directly away from the basket is no longer a thrown ball.

The rule doesn't, as one camp would argue, allow for that...they'd say its a thrown ball until it hits a teammate, floor, or official as the rule, as written, doesn't indicate any other way for the throw to end. As that group interprets the rule, all rebounds (from a throw from behind the arc) that are tapped in by the defense are still a 3.

I see where you're coming from, and I think that that should be how we call an FGA versus a 3PA in this situation. However, I don't believe that the current rule allows that. From what I recall, the intent of the change was to state that if A releases the ball beyond the 3-point arc, and it somehow goes into the basket, we score 3 points unless:

1. another player from A touches the ball while he/she is in (or has jumped from inside) the 3-point arc, or
2. the ball hits the court inside the 3-point arc or an official standing inside the 3-point arc

Do any of you rulebook savers out there have the book from the first year this change went into effect?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Do any of you rulebook savers out there have the book from the first year this change went into effect?

It is listed in the '01-'02 book. It reads the same way that it does now and there is no case play to clarify it.

[Camron Rust]

I have a couple plays that I believe illustrates the logic behind my assertion that it is two points.

A1, from the corner, throws the ball towards the basket. If it goes in, we all agree that it is a three. However, instead of going in, it is an airball, passing over the rim. A very short B1, who is in a rebounding position on the weakside attempts to get the ball. Instead of catching it cleanly, B1 taps it back up and into the basket. By the literal interpretation group, this would be a 3 as the ball was thrown and only a defender touched the ball. Do we really think this is what was desired by the rulesmakers????

Another similar play:

A1, throws the ball towards the basket. Instead of going in, it hits the front of the iron. A5 and B5 go up for the rebound. B5, after the ball has rebounded 4 feet off the rim, is the only one to touch the ball and taps it back up and into the basket. By the literal interpretation group, this would be a 3 as the ball was thrown and only a defender touched the ball. Do we really think this is what was desired by the rulesmakers????

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Do we really think this is what was desired by the rulesmakers????

Camron - I don't know; I'll have to ask next time I see one of them.

Again, I don't really disagree with your assertions, but can you give me a rule or case that states otherwise? If the rule specifically stated "try" only, then once the ball goes below the rim, we could say the 3-pt. try has ended, and now it's just a live ball entering the basket that would be counted as 2. But the rule doesn't say that. Maybe that's the "trade-off" that the rules-makers are allowing - it takes the judgement call away as to whether it is a try or pass, but in exchange it might allow some "crazy-looking" 3-point baskets.

[JRutledge]

I am in the purpose and intent group of this discussion. I do not think the intent of this rule was to allow all passes deflected by the defense to be apart of that interpretation. Now if the NF wants to clear this up, they do have the casebook to do so.

Peace