A few situations/questions
 

just a couple of situations/questions that i would like your input on. thanks in advance.

- HS summer league game. A2 is attempting to pass the ball to A4 from right wing beyond 3pt line to right block posting up. B4 jumps in front of the play and deflects the pass in the air, off the backboard into the basket. How many points are awarded? They awarded us 3pts, but for some reason I had the feeling it should have only been 2, but I cant find any reference to this type of situation in the rulebook. Discussed with officials after the game (we lost by 7) and they weren't quite sure either and said they would get back to me.

- AAU, 8th grade level. Early on in the game, there were several situations where subs entered the game with jerseys untucked and were warned by the officials, subs entered the game without being beckoned by the officials (i.e. 2 freethrows being shot), etc... several warnings were issued and at one point two players from each team were not allowed into the game as their jerseys were not tucked in. Down the stretch with about 2 minutes to go, A1 is waiting at the scorers table to sub into the game as a foul was called. One of the officials (R1) had checked the foul situation with the scorebook a few possessions before so even though the scoreboard indicated 10 team fouls, he knew it was only 9. As the players were lining up for the freethrow(s) with R2 on the baseline with the ball about to administer to the shooter A3 (lead?),
R1 is at the table telling the scoreboard folks to fix the team fouls and beckons for A1 to enter the game. R2 was focusing his attention on the players lining up, and sees A1 run into the game (no horn or whistle had sounded, and since he saw his partner at the table, probably did not see him get called into the game). R2 whistles A1 for a technical foul, R1 approaches R2 but R2 turns away saying something about "they have to learn somehow", A1 yells "this is BullS#!T!!!" and R2 whistles A1 for second T. R1 finally grabs R2 and tells him he beckoned A1 into the game, and that the scoreboard was incorrect with the team fouls. How would you guys handle this situation? What ended up happening is A3 shoots the one and one, only one Technical foul is called on A1 (im assuming for the cussing/disrespect/unsportsmanlike reaction) and team B shoots two freethrows, ball is awarded to team B at halfcourt.

- HS summer league game, my team is waiting to play the next game so we watch as this situation unfolds. Offense player A1 dribbles the ball across halfcourt, and as B1 pressures A1, he slaps A1's forearm, causing the ball to go into the backcourt. B1 does not touch the ball or hand, clearly fouling A1 on the forearm/elbow area. The ball is headed out of bounds in the backcourt, so A1 runs and tries to retrieve the ball and save it in bounds, but as he grabs the ball B1 nudges A1 out of bounds while holding the ball. Official rewards the to team A. B coach asks official why no out-of-bounds or backcourt was called, official responds "your best scorer fouled him twice, coach, want me to call the foul?". Coach: "if my guy fouled him, call the foul, he's gotta learn". Official: "its not my job to teach your team, coach your team, i'll officiate".

- 2 pts

- I would have done it that way as well

- He's right, his job is to officiate not teach/coach. He just didn't do it so well in that play.

Agree with 2 and 3.

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.

If you have a clear pass deflected this is a 2 all the way.

I am so confused I have no idea what you are actually asking. You shoot the FTs in order and it appears that took place. Outside of that I am confused. ;)

I have no idea. It sounds like there is more to the situation.

Peace

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"?

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

in situation 1, i was thinking it should be 2 points, but im not exactly sure why. something keeps popping in my head with the words "unobstructed" but i can't find it in the book and it wouldn't explain a partially blocked 3point shot that goes in. This one I guess I am looking for advice on where to look in the rulebook to verify either side whether its 2 or 3 points.

in situation 2, I was thinking this was handled very well. Just wanted to see if there was any input from officials to this odd situation.

in situation 3, it appeared that the official was trying to give a "make-up call" (B1 fouled A1, foul was not called, team B should have gotten the ball on the over-and-back or out-of-bounds). I'm sure most of you would have called the foul in the first place, but if for some reason you did not call the foul, which team would you reward possession to?

by the way, whenever possible, any references to where to look in the rulebook would be highly appreciated. thanks

Good point.

NFHS game 3 pts (stupid rule)
NCAA game 2 points.

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 <font color = red>thrown ball</font color> 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, <font color = red>a teammate inside the arc</font color>, 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.

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 think the purpose is to take out the judgement of whether it's a try or pass. How would you like to judge whether that last-second heave from half-court that goes in was a try or just a pass to a teammate standing near the basket?
I think you're right on that one - I'm going home to look that one up.

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?

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.

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

There is no such language from what I can remember. This is also not a shot, it is a pass that was deflected by the defense.

All that I can say is that you should shoot everything in the order that they took place. I cannot comment about what was said and if there should have been Ts or not.

With all due respect, what the hell is a make up call? This is coach speak more than anything.

And you would be wrong about what most of us would do. First I did not see the play and it is likely the conversation was about other contact and not the contact you claim took place (the effort for the ball could have been where the "foul" was referred to). I know you think the exchange that you heard might be a key to something, but it could have been only part of the story. For one did you hear all the other conversations this official had with this coach? Based on the fact it was not your game and you likely were not watching every minute, it is possible there is more to this situation than you are letting on.

Peace

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????

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.

Situation one is tricky because we have a pass that was deflected, and then it went in. At best, you can rule it like an alley-oop but only in this case, scored by the defense. What's important to know here is where on the floor was the ball deflected. That is where the shot was placed from, which tells you if it's a 2-point score or a 3-point score.

S#2 is not that difficult to understand and I would rule the exact way they did by giving the player one technical for his comment. Good the officials got together and corrected the misunderstanding.

S#3 is a perfect example of what not to tell a coach. Also, if the player picked up the ball and was bumped out of bounds, you have to either call a foul or it's the other teams ball. You can not, not call a foul here. We are not here to protect players. This is bad officiating all around on this example. The coach had a valid point. If you're not going to call a foul, then it should be our ball. Got nothing to do with teaching the players, just call the game.

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.

Rules reference, please?

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

The point is, where was the defender when he touched the ball. Inside the 3-pt arc, it can only be 2 points. No different than instead of B5 hitting it, A5 hit it back in. Where is A5 standing, inside the 3-pt arc, it can only be 2.

Why did you even ask?

Peace

Well, I would love to. That's why we do this, isn't it?

;)

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.

Please, I don't need your help. You're utterly and completely wrong...as usual.

I was sitting by the scorers table right where the play happened (I was seated there to help the new kid operate the scoreboard). The ref basically admitted seeing the slap on the arm and bump out of bounds but didnt call the foul. It was pretty apparent that he meant that it was a foul, he didnt call the foul, but didnt feel it was fair to give the ball to team B so he was going to give it to team A since it was obvious fouls that caused the play.

The NFHS has a conflict in its rulings on the first play. Both of these case plays appear in the 2006-07 Case Book. So you have to take your pick until the Federation decides to clarify. Personally, I would award two points if the touch took place after the ball had fallen below the level of the ring, but three if the touch took place while the ball was on the way up or still above the ring level.

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.

That rule was not written with the consideration of a deflection....a different rule is in place for that. When the two are put together, some common sense must be used otherwise you'll end up with an Old School.

Because it's like banging your head on a wall - it feels so good when you stop.

Or, who knows, (s)he might even come up with one. I can't wait to see that.

If you have it all figured out, why are you asking us? Seriously then if you understood the entire exchange, the only person you can really say something to is the official that made the call. I know how parts of conversations get turned into other meanings when people are not around the entire time. Unless the officials said that to you, it is very likely there is more to the situation. You do not have to accept my opinion, but you did ask for opinions (keep that in mind). ;)

Peace

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!! I didn't have my books here and this (in red) is exacly what I needed....and i agree with your commentary.

A deflection by a defender for a ball that was clearly not going to go in ends the original throw and is only two points!!!!

:D :D :D :D

Also, the orange text mentioned continuing in flight...a ball that makes a 90 degree turn is not continuing in flight, it's a new flight.

There is a picture of a defensive player deflecting a shot shortly after it is released on the top of page 38 of the 2005-06 Simplified & Illustrated. I believe that it is this type of touching that the NFHS had in mind when writing 5.2.1 Sit C, but I can't say for sure.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! :D

I agree there's a discrepency between the two cases, but it is the difference is between a try and a throw. So, isn't a throw exactly what happened in the OP? How would you explain to A's coach, who would happen to know this ruling, why you are only awarding 2 points?

As some esteemed (read: old) members would ask:

Rules reference, please? ;)

What percentage of turn would constitute a "change of direction" vs. a simple deflection? 75 degress? 45 degrees? 7.238 degrees? It's already a pain in the butt carrying around that air pressure gauge; now do I have to start carrying a protractor?

I stand corrected, but I'm not so sure I understand the ruling. I certainly don't agree with it but it's not the first time. If the ball was a thrown pass to a teammate, it has no chance of going in, yet deflected by the defense and count it 3, oh boy, I'm not understanding the logic behind that.

The same one that backs up 4.41.4 SITUATION B as stated above.
I think the case makes it pretty clear. Once the ball, as originally thrown, is determined to have no chance of entering the basket (dropped below the rim, thrown away from the rim, never reached the height of the rim and is decending, etc.), any subsequent deflection is a new action....not to be considered part of the original throw...and not eligible for 3 points.

Now that is basically what I wrote earlier, and in my opinion is much better than the "change of direction" criterion you previously posted. :)

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?

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.

Same old, same old......

Nothing ever changes.:rolleyes:

You're right - the case play does make it clear, but you are mixing the two cases. The one you keep citing specifically mentions "try", the one I cite says "throw". If you have a "try", then you do have all the elements of when a try ends. However, if the ball is thrown, the only specific requirements listed in the rules for it to be <B>not</B> counted as a 3-pt. basket is if it touches a teammate within the arc, hits an official, or hits the floor. 5.2.1(c) also says none of the elements you've listed.

Philisophically I don't disagree with you that it seems silly to count your examples as 3-point baskets. It's just that the rule and case make it clear they are.

Was there anything in the comments on the rule revisions?

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?

thanks for the great discussion, everyone.

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.

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.

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 <B>is</B> covered specifically in the rule - touching the floor is the same as touching a <B>teammate</B>; touching a defender is not included.

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.

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!!! ;) :D ;) )

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.

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:
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!)

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.:D

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.

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.:rolleyes:

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."

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.

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".

Yea, what he said. :D

I respectfully disagree with M&M and Scrapper. It does not seem as if you will be swayed in your opinion. That is up to you.

Actually you disagree with me as well.

What I want to know is when did Scrapple get voted into the clique? Our constitution requires 3 recommendations and a 2/3 majority vote. I'm going to file a grievance.

I'm in the clique?!?

You guys like me! You really like me!

(I'm not sure I like the idea of a Ranger's fan being part of our clique. Make sure I get a copy of that ballot.)

Not so fast Norma Rae. :D

Peace

1) Me too fwiw.

2) Also fwiw, screw Skippy.

Aw, don't ruin my self-induced moment of acceptance...

We should let him stay because he always brings the beer without complaining...keep it to yourself...

What the hell's a 2/3 majority vote? :confused:

Enjoy it - I apparently was left out. :(