What color is the sky in your world, Nevada? :D

No, I wouldn't score the points because A2's try started after the horn sounded. A2's "touch" after the horn sounded ended A1's try at the same time. Again, can you come up with a plausible reason for A2 touching the ball other than with the intent of re-directing it at the basket?

It's fine to come up with a twp and have a rules discussion on it, but please try and come up with one that makes a little more sense than this one. Maybe one that explains a situation when A2 might actually touch the ball with his hand(s) on a shot by A1 <b>without</b> A2 having the intent of re-directing it at the basket. I certainly can't think of a logical one.

About the only one I can think of Nevada raised earlier - a screener getting fouled back into the shooter (most likely a set-shooter shooting "from the hip" in this scenario). The screener flails his arms in an attempt to regain balance and in doing so unintentionally contacts the ball with his fingertips just after it is released by A1.

Not very common, but certainly possible.

Yeah. We call it English.

And if by some weird chance that exact same scenario came up, I'm sure that any official with a lick of common sense would have no problem ruling that it wasn't a "tap"-i.e. a "try". In any other situation though, methinks also that any official with a lick of common sense would rule that a teammate of the shooter jumping in the air and touching a shot was trying to re-direct that shot and that was a "tap". There's no other reason for that teammate to be jumping in the air to touch the shot, at least no other reason that I can think of.

I agree 100% - but the purpose of the question in the OP was to determine if an inadvertant touching by A2 caused the try to end. And the answer is that an inadvertant touching does not cause it to end.

In reality, I'm approaching it just like you are - I'm assuming any touching by Team A is going to be an intentional tap unless it is obvious that it is not.

Question's Not Asked
 

The questions I have that haven't been asked is how in the world were you able to adminster 2 FT's? You said you stayed with the action on the floor which is the right thing to do, so did you see the ball go in and disallow the bucket? If not, did you look to your partner for confirmation of the ball going in or not? Why didn't he/she let you know the bucket went in so you could either wave it off or count it? Where was the table during all of this? Didn't they ask if the bucket should count? Seems to me that if you got all the way to shooting the first of two before a questsion arose there was a lack of communication somewhere. Please don't take this as criticism, just curious as to how this came about so we can all be aware in case it happens to us.

Give an example of "obvious that it's not."

As I said above: a screener getting fouled back into the shooter (most likely a set-shooter shooting "from the hip" in this scenario). The screener flails his arms in an attempt to regain balance and in doing so unintentionally contacts the ball with his fingertips just after it is released by A1.

That's just one example. Another might be a drive into the lane, fouled hard while goint up knocks the player toward the ground and the try is a "scoop" from very low, it could glance off another member of Team A. "Obvious" is a relative term to the official making the judgement.

I image Spud Webb as the shooter and Yao Ming as the screener.

Unless it glances off of the <b>hand(s)</b> of the other member of team A, this try also ended when it touched the teammate. Again, that's from case book play 6.7.6SitA. There's <b>NO</b> judgment involved in that call; it's a rule.

I don't see how 6.7.6SitA applies here, as there was never a try involved there. That is simply a pass deflecting off A2. Here, we're talking about a try glancing off A2.

Two completely different situations.

Vastly untrue. That casebook play says that A1 "passes" the ball. A1 never even started a try. There was no try at anytime in this play. The play ruling doesn't say that A1's try ended when striking A2. It simply never existed. That ruling is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

The only point that you got correct is that a try or tap is made with the hands. Therefore, a ball glancing off a teammate's head, arm, or back certainly can't be considered a new try for goal. If the touch was legal and the ball still had a chance to go in (not having dropped well below the ring as in casebook play 4.41.4 SitB), then the original try has not yet ended. You defeated your own case with this point.

You keep advocating that any touch by a teammate automatically ends a try. That's just plain wrong and you know it. My entire point in this thread is that just because a try touches or is touched by a teammate doesn't automatically mean that it can't count.
There is DEFINITELY judgment involved in this call.

You want a play ruling that has some bearing on this? Try 5.6.2 SitA.
"The touching does not end the try. The goal is scored."
or 4.41.4 SitA
Granted that the touching is done by an opponent in case, but there is no rule which specifies that the touching must be by the opponent and can't be by a teammate. Notice the rule references for the quoted ruling: 4-41-4 and 5-6-2 exception 1.

The bottom line is that there is no rule which says that a try ends when another player touches the ball. That criterion has nothing to do with how a try ends.

Um, no, both Dan and I are saying that if a teammate of a shooter touches the ball so that it's redirected into the basket, that act is an obvious tap, which is the same as a "try". There is <b>NO</b> other reason for the shooter's teammate to touch the ball. That would be a second try iow. Therefore the first try ended with the teammate's tap.

In real life, disregarding some stoopid twp that'll never happen in a million years, <b>NO</b> player is ever going to jump up in the air in front of a teammate shooting the ball and get a hand up to touch the shot <b>unless</b> he was trying to tap the ball into the basket. That's just common sense. Whoa! Let me amend that; that's not a correct statement. To Dan and I, that's common sense. Obviously, you disagree.

Sorry, but that's not anything close to what you just wrote. Since you are getting on in years and perhaps need to be reminded, here are your exact words:

That is wrong twice: 1. because the initial throw in that case book play was not a try; and 2. because glancing off any part of a teammate OTHER THAN the hand cannot legally be considered the start of a new try.