When does the try really end?
 

This happened during a varsity boys scrimmage this week. A1 drives the lane and is fouled in the act of shooting. After the ball leaves A1's hand, it is tipped (unintentionally) by A2 who is jumping in anticipation of a rebound. the ball deflects off A2's hand and into the basket. (I'm not sure if the ball was above or below the rim at this point)

I was in lead, called a blocking foul, stayed with the action on the floor, and did not see the ball enter the basket. I reported the foul and awarded two free throws. My partner administered the first free throw which was successfull and the players started preparing for a throw-in. My partner says "one more shot" and we realize there is a problem. Partner said the goal should be disallowed due to the ball being dead after the orginal shot since it was tipped before it went in the basket.

Rule book says the ball is live until the try or tap ends. 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.

At this point I have confused myself and have not come to a rules supported conclusion. When does the ball become dead in this particular situation? If the ball was tipped by the opposing team, would the answer to the question be the same?

I have confidence at least one of you can put it in simple terms for me.

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.

ranjo-

Prior to A2 tipping the ball:

1. Was the throw successful?
2. Was it certain that it would be unsuccessful?
3. Did it touch the floor?
4. Did it become dead?

I've got "no" to all 4 questions. Live ball - score the basket - shoot 1 - throw in to Team B anywhere on the endline after good free throw.

I believe partner was right. The ball became dead when it touched A2. I'll look for rules reference...

And I thought I over-thought things!!

Did any of these things happen? Let's see. Out of order, the ball didn't touch the floor, it was never certain that the throw was unsuccessful. Those are the easy ones. Did the ball become dead? Well, the foul didn't make it dead, and the tip didn't make it dead, so I say no, it didn't. And the throw was successful. I say the try ended when the throw was successful.

Clearly if B touched the ball, the try does not end and we'd count the basket and shoot one FT. See 4.41.4A and 5.6.2A

I don't see any cases involving A touching the ball. I think you need to decide whether the touch was a tap. If so, that ends the try (and starts another). If not, the try doesn't end.

I'm gonna take back what I said. Rule 6-7 Note: If A1's try or tap is legally touched in flight, the goal counts if made, if the horn sounds before or after the legal touching.

If I'm reading it correctly, as stated earlier, it all depends on whether A2's touching is ruled a tap. If it's a tap, no goal. If not, and just legal, incidental touching, then score the goal.

I said no goal earlier as that was an inerpretation in a rules study meeting earlier this year I attended, but I'm currently finding no ruling to back that up...

Thanks for all of your replies and rules references. Rainmaker had it right in that that I had just "overthought" the whole thing.

The only remaining question is: If the ball was below the rim when it was inadvertently tapped; would that signify to you the original try was unsuccesfull?

Actually, I thought your partner had overthought the thing, not you.

If one of the refs saw clearly that it was below the rim, and the tip was the only thing that caused it to go in, then yea, I'd say your partner was right. But unless someone was certain, I'd give the shooter the benefit of the doubt.

Had the table scored the basket? Was there any comment from them about one FT or two?

Important clarification - where was the ball in flight? Was it on its way up or down?

If it was coming down, it was one of two things - either clearly unsuccessful, or it was goaltending. The outcome would be the same in either of these - no basket awarded and A1 gets two throws.

If the ball was on the way up and inadvertently contacted A2, regardless of where it was (below or above rim level), it seems you would count the bucket.

Personally, I would have a hard time ruling that the ball <b>inadvertently</b> touched a <b>hand(s)</b> of a shooter's teammate. The rules definition of a try or tap states that ball must touch a hand or hands. And if it touches any other body part of the shooter's teammate, the try is over, as per case book play 6.7.6SitA. There's no reason that I can think of for a shooter's teammate to get his hand(s) in the air in front of the shot unless it's an attempt to re-direct that shot. And re-directing the shot ends the initial "try".

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a beaver.....:D

Hard to disagree with that.

Coach is shouting "Hands Up!!" Player instinctively puts hands up, even though it's the wrong coach.

Player is swinging arms up into the air in attempt to screen defender.

Player is jumping up to wave at mommy in the second row, who can't see him over the bodies.

All these players are facing away from the shooter, btw. Didn't see ball coming. I say inadvertent.

Nixon?

So if I understand your reasoning, if the orginal shot rebounded off a teammates head or shoulder and entered the basket, the try has ended and the goal would not count?

Oh my. That was rather sexist on my part wasn't it? I'll hurry back and fix it.

Absolutely no question about that, as to "rebound" of a head or shoulder the original try would have to be clearly unsuccessful.

In all of these cases it is obvious the original shot would have been no good. How do I know this? Because the deflection redirected it and caused it to go in.

No shot.

That said...how is it legal for a player to swing "...arms up into the air in attempt to screen defender." Is said defender sitting in a helicopter?

That's what case book play 6.7.6SitA is telling us. If it doesn't rebound from an offensive player's hand or hands, it can't be a try or tap. And if the whistle has blown, rule 6-7EXCEPTION(a) doesn't apply and the ball is dead as per rules 6-7-5&7. Can't score with a dead ball.

I wasn't disagreeing with that point. Just answering the question, "Why would anyone have their arms up in the air except to deflect the shot? How could the tip be inadvertent?

Screener isn't very skilled? No contact made? I see a lot of this at the lower levels.

I don't know about sexist. Just trying to clarify which uh, quack, we were trying to match.

Coach isn't very skilled either... I know i know...the coaches are glorified babysitters at this level...

Um, no, gonna leave that one alone. I can think of several responses, but every damn one of 'em is guaranteed to get me into the doo-doo again with either you or the mods.

For once in my life, restraint, JR, restraint.:)

Thanks.

That's just plain not true. If what you wrote were correct, then any try touched by a defensive player would also have to be ruled no good. The touch by the defense is also going to redirect the ball. So your logic fails in this one.

Here is another example:
The original try could have been directed at the backboard with the intent to bank it in. However, once it was deflected by another player (offense or defense), it could fall short or its intented target and go directly into the basket.

That's a good goal.

===============
For the original play, by rule, if the ball was legally touched and the touching was not a controlled tap, which would constitute a different try for goal, then the goal should count. There is discretion required in this call. However, the mere fact that another player (offense or defense) contacted the try does not automatically end the try and disallow the basket.

That's just plain not true. Obviously you're failing to understand what Dan is saying. A touch by the defense re-directing the shot does not end the original try until it is certain that the original try has no chance of going through the basket. However, a touch by an offensive teammate with the purpose of re-directing the ball at the basket means the end of the original try and the start of a <b>second</b> try. Rules 4-41-4,5,6&7.

If another offensive player tapped the ball and it went in, common sense tells you that this last tap <b>WAS</b> actually a tap under R4-41. Whyinthehell otherwise would that player be up in the air altering his teammates shot? Do you really think he was trying to block his teammate's shot?

Your logic sucks in this one.

Nope, that's not what Dan wrote.

That is what I wrote regardless of what you think.

Then it must have been in some kind of old-guy secret code because that's not what the words say. :p

A case that may shed some light on this situation is the one regarding where A2 is located vs. the location of A1....

A1 behind the 3 point arc. A1 releases a try. A2, who is inside the arc, touches the ball while it is on the way up. Ball goes in...score 2 points.

You raise an interesting issue. Let me complicate it.
A1 releases a try from behind the 3pt arc. The period ending horn sounds. A2, who is inside the arc, legally touches the ball on the way up. The ball goes in. Do you score the points?

The only reason you wouldn't is if you believe that the try ended before entering the basket. However, "when a teammate touches the ball" is not one of the four ways listed in 4-41-4 as how a try ends.


I think that all that your scenario depicts is a try that does not meet all the requirements of a three point goal. Most people don't realize that the shooter being completely behind the line is not the only requirement.

And what if the touching by the teammate is not done intentionally or with the purpose of redirecting the ball towards the basket?

Two cases:
1. A2 sets a screen on B1 to free his teammate, A1, for an open shot. A1 begins the habitual throwing motion of his try for goal. B1 pushes through A2's screen in an attempt to reach A1. The officials deems this a foul and sounds the whistle. A1 completes his throwing motion and releases a try for goal. A2, who was pushed off balance by B1, falls backwards towards A1 with his arms flying upwards into the air. The ball deflects off one of A2's hands and continues on its way to the basket and enters the goal.

2. Teammates A1 and A2 are battling for the league scoring title. Whoever scores more points in the final game of the season will capture the crown. A1 has scored one fewer point than his teammate with only seconds remaining in the game. Just prior to the final horn A1 releases a try for goal. A2 leaps from nearby and purposely trys to block the shot. Despite his best effort to prevent the ball from entering the goal, A2 only succeeds in slightly tipping the ball on its upward flight. This redirects the ball high into the air as the horn sounds, but when the ball descends it still passes through the basket.

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.

A couple of observations:

If the touch by a teammate is so slight that one cannot see that the ball was redirected, how often will be able to say with certainty that the ball was touched at all?

If the ball is in its downward flight, it obviously can't count. If it's above the rim, it's goaltending. If it's below the rim, or otherwise has no chance to go in, 4-4, it is certain the try is unsuccessful, and thus, ended.

If a teammate inadvertently touches A1's try while it is on the way up,
I don't know, because I can't even imagine it.

When you get on in years, you'll be known far and wide as an OOOO.

You're calling goaltending on the offense? I realize that the violation is not defined strictly in terms of the defense, but I don't think I've ever seen this called.

IMO, this is a vestige from (or is it "of?") when the offense could commit goaltending on a FT. When that was removed (becaause entering the lane would make the ball dead and the touching would be ignored), the GT definition could /should have been changed.

On the OP:

If the defense touches the ball, the try doesn't end.

If the offense touches the ball, then I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense and 99.996% of the time ruling that the try ended. Since the OP *specifically says* that the touch was unintentional, then the OP falls in the .004% that's left.

This is a great point NCAAREF. The only excuse I have is that it was my first scrimmage of the year, and my partner was another very experienced official so I didn't question what he was doing. The bottom line is that it never should have gotten as far as it did and we should have decided before any free throws were attempted what was going to happened. I'm just glad it happened in a scrimmage and not a game!

Maybe I missed it somewhere in this thread, but did you state if the shooter was fouled in the air? The act of shooting includes an airborne shooter. Therefore if he was airborne and was blocked on his way down, the try had not ended.

That said, 4.41.5 describes a tap as "an attempt to diirect" the ball. Was this the case? To me, if the initial shot hit off the back of the hand of A5 then went into the basket, it's an "and 1".

If it's a deliberate tap, then I would consider it the same as a "pass and crash" situation and if the ball had left A5's hand ("tap") before the block, then count the basket and award a common foul. If the ball had not left A5's hand before the crash, then ball dead. IMO.

Unfortunately, your opinion in red is wrong. :( The rest of your post is fine.:)
You are failing to acknowledge that continuous motion applies to both a try and a tap, and furthermore comes into play when there is foul by the defense against ANY opponent, not just the one attempting the try or tap. So the ball does not have to leave A5's hand before the blocking foul, but A5 only has to touch the ball to start the tapping motion prior to the contact of the blocking foul against his teammate.

Here are the relevant rule references:

2004-05 Major Editorial Changes
4-11-1 Clarified that continuous motion applies to a try or tap for a field goal and free throws, when there is a foul by any defensive player, not just a defensive foul on the shooter.

From the 2007-08 NFHS Rules Book:
4-11-1 . . . Continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.


CONTINUOUS MOTION
6.7 COMMENT: If an opponent fouls after A1 has started to throw for goal, A1 is permitted to complete the customary arm movement; and, if A1 is pivoting or stepping when A1 or a teammate is fouled, A1 may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity, as long as A1 is still holding the ball. If A1 starts a dribble, the “continuous motion” immediately ends. These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs. The continuous-motion rule applies to a free-throw try as well as to a field-goal try or tap for goal. However, in a tap for goal, the motion does not begin until the ball is touched. The “continuous-motion” provision does not apply to batting or tipping the ball during rebounding or a jump ball. In these cases, A1 is not considered as being in the act of trying or tapping for goal. If an opponent commits a foul during this type of action before the ball is in flight, the foul causes the ball to become dead immediately. In rebounding, the ball is not always batted. It might be caught in one hand and then thrown into the basket with a snap of the wrist or fingers or touched and tapped toward the basket. Under these circumstances, an official is justified in ruling that it is a try or tap instead of a bat. Continuous motion is of significance only when there is a personal or technical foul by B after the trying or tapping motion by A1 is started and before the ball is in flight. It includes any body, foot or arm motion normally used in trying for a field goal or free throw, and it ends when the ball leaves the hand(s) on the try or tap. (4-11)
6.7 SITUATION C: Under what circumstances does the ball remain live when a foul occurs just prior to the ball being in flight during a try or tap? RULING: The ball would ordinarily become dead at once, but it remains live if the foul is by the defense, and this foul occurs after A1 has started the try or tap for goal and time does not expire before the ball is in flight. The foul by the defense may be either personal or technical and the exception to the rule applies to field goal tries and taps and free-throw tries. (4-11; 4-41-1)
6.7 SITUATION D: A1 has started a try for a goal (is in the act of shooting), but the ball is not yet in flight when the official blows the whistle for B2 fouling A2. A1's try is successful. RULING: Score the goal by A1. If Team A is in the bonus, A2 will shoot free throws. If not, Team A will have a designated spot throw-in nearest to where the foul occurred. COMMENT: The foul by the defense need not be on the player in the act of shooting for continuous motion principles to apply. (6-7 Exception c)

You have dismissed my premise without understanding it. Your whole research is based on an assumption that it was still a try. I clearly stated that if A5 (the other offensive player) made a redirection with an intentional and distinct tap, the initial try was either ended or was no more than a PASS. Like an alley-oop. It would be a judgment but would pass muster on two counts: 1) it was redirected because it had no chance of being successful - ergo the try had ended, and/or 2) the foul occurred after the ball was clearly in flight which ends continual motion.

I suggest you try to understand the position of the other poster better before declaring him wrong. :(

I'm not sure I follow, Ralph. The "try" and the "act of shooting" are different things.

You can definitely have an airborne shooter (and a foul on or by the airborne shooter) after the try has ended.

Go back and read his post, Ralph. He specifically stated the only part of your post that was incorrect was what he highlighted in red. The tap does not need to leave A5's hand, in only has to have been started. He was specifically and only addressing that aspect of your post.

I understand the difference and that is my point - they are two different issues. I am just tossing out a thought. Let's say A1 jumps and shoots. Before A1 comes down and before he is fouled, A5 redirects the ball with a tap. After the tap occurs, the airborne shooter A1 is then fouled by B1.

Maybe that was not the OP dilemma. Maybe the shot hit A5's hand but it was not a tap. Dunno.

Assuming the first scenario, I may be wrong but here is what I think. The second A5 tapped, the official could assume the initial shot was unsuccessful since it had to be redirected by A5. Therefore the initial try had ended. However, until A1 returned to the floor he was still in the act of shooting. Since the A5 tap had started before the foul, the foul by B1 does not make the ball dead. A5 scores. A1 was in the act of shooting when fouled since he was still an airborne shooter. Score the basket and give A1 two free throws.

Now, I can't imagine this happenning, but what is wrong with that logic. :confused:

Nothing is wrong with that. I think that it is completely correct. A case of strange, but true. :)

However, notice that what you wrote in this post and I have highlighted in blue. Is the exact opposite of what you wrote before and to which I responded with a correction. Your statement in back in post #51 was indeed wrong. :( The premise of my earlier post was just fine. A tap for goal started with a touch does not become dead due to a foul by an opponent and to score the ball does NOT have to have left the tapper's hand at the time of the foul. You were mistaken about that point.

PS One will probably be awarding Team A FOUR FTs if this happens and is called correctly. :D

We are now on the same page. maybe I worded it poorly before, but always knew what I meant! :D

BTW since we all agree that A1 was an airborne shooter when fouled, the terminology above is also a slight inaccuracy. But since you're new here and not yet accustomed to our nitpicking, we'll give you a free pass on this one. ;)

Hey let's change this in just one way and consider another strange, but instructive sequence!

A1 jumps into the air to try for goal. B1 has obtained a legal guarding position on the floor prior to A1 going airborne. A1's try is clearly short and has fallen below the level of the ring when A5 taps it into the basket. The ball has left A5's hand on the tap BEFORE A1 crashes into B1 prior to returning to the floor.

How does one handle that scenario? ;)

I would be on the sidelines throwing up.

I don't do too well in anti-gravity situations. :)

Seriously this is a 1 in a google play, but let's consider the possibility.

Say the shooter is Spud Webb and that the try was taken from very near the basket so that it could end rather quickly and be tapped by a tall teammate right away.

This is just an intellectual exercise anyway.

OOPs, my bad.

Yikes. I suppose one view would be a personal foul and the basket counts. no team control. Try ended. Airborne player is no longer an airborne shooter.

And another view might be to consider what type of foul occurs when the airborne shooter fouls (not intentionally or flagrantly). ;)

When does a player cease to be an airborne shooter? 4-4-1 :D

When he returns to the floor. But in this case I suppose when there is no longer a try - when the subsequent tap started?? Unless they can levitate this would be the only sitch I can think of where a try would end before he returned to the floor. That's why I think a ref could say it was an alley oop pass and not an attempt. :confused:

4-1-1 says when released the ball "on a try". In this sitch it is no longer a try or could be argued it never was. That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

You know the rule; you cite the rule, yet you then want to suppose something else. WHY? :confused: I don't understand the need to try to fabricate something new.

For example:

If A1 goes airborne and releases a try for goal that is blocked by B2, but then A1 charges into B1 would you say that since the try had ended that this was not a PC foul? Would you award the bonus at the other end?

What if A1's try is goaltended by B2 and then B1 fouls A1 while he is still airborne?

Google is an internet company (ticker GOOG). The number 10^100 is googol. Thank you for your attention to this small matter.

Oh, and the Russian novelist is Gogol. ;)

Should have stopped there. He ceases to be an airborne shooter when and only when he returns to the floor.
Otherwise, if it was when the try ends, it would cease as soon as the shot was blocked, or the dunk went through, or....

...and a googly is something they do in cricket. Kinda like a slider I think.

I thought googly is what I get when I watch Michelle Pfeiffer.

no that's gooey

Huh.

I thought gooey had something to do with Twinkies.

Thank you, coach.

(That one's for rainmaker. :D )

Nevermind - I was just pontificating scenarios - not worth discussing this never-will-happen incident anymore. Thanks for the dialog, though.