.8;.2;shot and...

[Talkinhoopsy'all]

Well fellow lords of the hooplands, here is one that I saw durng a playoff game that caused some debate but as it had no outcome on the game it was quickly forgotten.

The play- Team A is inbounding the ball from under their basket, a shot from the deep corner results in an airball, but low and behold A-2 gets the rebound with .2 seconds and puts up a shot right before the buzzer goes off...the lay-up is in but is does the shot count?

[BktBallRef]

If the ball was released prior to the horn, it's good. The 3/10ths rule only applies to situations where play is resumed with a FT or throw-in.

[Talkinhoopsy'all]

The score was not allowed-

[BktBallRef]

Okay.
Why not?
Was it released late?
That's the only possible reason to negate it.
I hope they didn't base it on 5-2-5.

[Talkinhoopsy'all]

I beleive that was the reasoning, released late

[BktBallRef]

If it was released late, that's fine.
But the 0:00.2 really has no bearing on the play.

[jbduke]

BKBRef,

I'm not questioning your rules interpretation, necessarily. But I do think that the situation deserves some thought. I have two in this case.

The first is, how is it that an official on the floor can be looking up at the clock and at the shooter and know with certainty that the seemingly-light-speed-moving tenths counter read two when the shooter secured the ball?

That said, now I'll move to what I think is a more important point. The rule that you state was inappropriately applied was put in because some rules committee member(s) became persuaded (how I do not know)that it is not possible to catch the ball and shoot it in less than three tenths of a second. If this is indeed true--and common sense has me leaning toward the negative, but that's another issue--then why should it matter whether the play occurred on a throw-in or free throw, or during the course of 'normal' play? If the rules say that it's not legal (presumably because it's not possible) in one situation, then why would the reasoning change under a different hypothetical?

jb

[RookieDude]

It has to do with "reaction time".

The rules committee had to come up with a time, and .3 seems to be what they decided was a fair time to have so that the timer could not give an unfair advantage to the shooter after a FT or Throw in.

If the clock is already running...the timer has no input as to weather the try can be made with .3 seconds or less.
Count the goal!

RD

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by jbduke
The rule that you state was inappropriately applied was put in because some rules committee member(s) became persuaded (how I do not know)that it is not possible to catch the ball and shoot it in less than three tenths of a second.

Uh, not quite.

Basically, an end of game try happened at the end of an NBA game where there was a huge clock lag. The NBA conducted experiments and said that it was humanly impossible to have a try after a throw-in with 3/10ths or less.

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Uh, not quite.

Basically, an end of game try happened at the end of an NBA game where there was a huge clock lag. The NBA conducted experiments and said that it was humanly impossible to have a try after a throw-in with 3/10ths or less.

Uh, not quite.
A tap is a try.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by mick

Uh, not quite.
A tap is a try.

Sorry - can't have a catch-and-shoot with with 3/10 or less.

[jbduke]

So my question stands. If a catch-and-shoot is impossible in .3 seconds on an in-bounds play or off of a free throw, then how can it be possible at other times? The more i think about it, the more I disagree with BKBRef's interpretation. He conceded the point that there was .2 remaining on the clock at the time of the catch, but said that the basket should be allowed to count anyway. i think the reason that there is no case-book play on this is because it is only by replay that you'd be able to know exactly how much time, in tenths of a second, remain on the clock at any given point. I am inclined to believe that in the sitch that started this thread, that the C or T who made the ruling was right to count the basket, and also that there was more than .2 left when the player rebounded/picked up the ball for a non-tip-try. The connections between the eyes and the brain are simply not quick enough to tell exactly what's on the clock.

How about this claim? There's no case-book play for this situation, and there doesn't need to be.

jb

[crew]

duke,
you are asking a redundant question. how are we or anyone else not at the game able to answer this question without speculation?
if there had been an exact point of reference(ie. the clock was stopped and started on the try)we could be of help. you are asking us if the shot should be counted good or no good. if the clock was running and the try was in fact released before time expired then the officials missed it. if the release happened after the horn then they were correct.
hoopsy stated "a2 gets the rebound with .2 sec on the clock and puts up a shot right before the buzzer goes off."
this answers any question on the play. good or no good? apparently good, but the officials missed it because they did not score the basket. it happens when their is not a monitor to go to. now i am being redundant, sorry.
a majority of the time officials do not have the ability to look at the clock and the shooter at the same time. most officials use the baseball theory(ie look at the bag and listen for the slap of the glove). the only way for us to know the exact expiration of time and release is to have the red light behind the backboard and good angle to see the light.

the nc2a theory is .3 or less only a tap could score a goal.
the nba theory is with .2 or less only a tap could be scored for goal.(mark dexter im not trying to step on toes or be a wise a$$)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by jbduke
So my question stands. If a catch-and-shoot is impossible in .3 seconds on an in-bounds play or off of a free throw, then how can it be possible at other times? The more i think about it, the more I disagree with BKBRef's interpretation. He conceded the point that there was .2 remaining on the clock at the time of the catch, but said that the basket should be allowed to count anyway. i think the reason that there is no case-book play on this is because it is only by replay that you'd be able to know exactly how much time, in tenths of a second, remain on the clock at any given point. I am inclined to believe that in the sitch that started this thread, that the C or T who made the ruling was right to count the basket, and also that there was more than .2 left when the player rebounded/picked up the ball for a non-tip-try. The connections between the eyes and the brain are simply not quick enough to tell exactly what's on the clock.

How about this claim? There's no case-book play for this situation, and there doesn't need to be.

jb

How about this claim?This situation is covered in the rulebook,and it definitely needs to be.It's how we rule whether a basket is good or not at the end of a period.The NFHS reference is R6-7-6 plus Exception #1.The NCAA mens reference is R6-6-1b.BktBallRef gave you the correct answer according to the rules in his very first post.Crew also expanded on it and gave you the correct interpretation of what probably happened on the play.It's a simple play.If the ball is out of the shooter's hands when the horn goes,the basket counts.If it's not out of the shooter's hands when the horn goes,you don't count it.That covers all trys,including tips,in all rulesets.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by jbduke
So my question stands. If a catch-and-shoot is impossible in .3 seconds on an in-bounds play or off of a free throw, then how can it be possible at other times?

When you have a last-second shot after a clock stoppage, everyone can see that there is either 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, or 0.0 seconds left on the clock. If the situation comes up during a running clock, the officials should not be concentrating on the clock, but should instead be looking at the hands to see if the shot was before/after the horn (if the shot is off at 0.4, it's going to take that long to look for the shooter's hands, and you won't know whether the shot was before/after the horn.)