3-Pointer???

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'ts not a strange rule. We determine a player's location by the parts touching the floor, not what's in the air. It makes it simpler.

FWIW, I agree that if you need frame-by-frame replay to determine his front foot lifted first, it's a two. Hair isn't meant to be split that finely.

Agreed. If, however, the front foot is clearly lifted first, it can only be a 3.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Having one foot inside the line when he started to shoot is completely irrelevant. You use the same concept as a player being in-bounds or OOB. If you jump off one foot with the other foot in the air, the foot that you jump off of determines your location.

Forget I said habitual shooting motion. When did he start his jump shot? When foot #1 was inside the three point line. The officials ruled it was a 2. Are you saying they got it wrong?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Forget I said habitual shooting motion. When did he start his jump shot? When foot #1 was inside the three point line. The officials ruled it was a 2. Are you saying they got it wrong?

No, I'm not saying they got it wrong. The officials in the game obviously ruled that the player didn't lift his front foot first.

I'm saying that having one foot inside the arc at the start of the shooting motion, as you said, is not the sole determining factor as to whether it's a 2 or a 3. You can't go by that in itself. The determining factor is where the shooter was touching when he left his feet. In this case, the officials obviously decided that that the front foot inside the arc wasn't lifted before the back foot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Forget I said habitual shooting motion. When did he start his jump shot? When foot #1 was inside the three point line. The officials ruled it was a 2. Are you saying they got it wrong?

I still question the premise.

The only applicable question is: What was his location when he released the shot? By rule, it's determined by the location of his last foot to leave the floor. When he "started" anything isn't relevant. It's "where did he leave the floor?"

[TSU2457]

I think the thing that everyone is missing is that his left foot (inside the arc) was his pivot foot.

So now what should the correct call be?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by TSU2457

I think the thing that everyone is missing is that his left foot (inside the arc) was his pivot foot.

So now what should the correct call be?

Are you allowed to lift the pivot foot before a shot?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TSU2457

I think the thing that everyone is missing is that his left foot (inside the arc) was his pivot foot.

So now what should the correct call be?

We're not missing it. It's not relevant.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by TSU2457

I think the thing that everyone is missing is that his left foot (inside the arc) was his pivot foot.

So now what should the correct call be?

This post belongs in the "know the rules" thread with the Billy Packer comments.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still question the premise.

The only applicable question is: What was his location when he released the shot? By rule, it's determined by the location of his last foot to leave the floor. When he "started" anything isn't relevant. It's "where did he leave the floor?"

While I agree with you, the rule could be more specific.

Rule 5.2 says: "Art. 2. A successful try from beyond the three-point line shall count three points for the team when the ball is thrown or directed into its basket."

It doesn't say "a try that starts from beyone the three-point line" or "a try that is released from beyond the three-point line"

I agree there's enough support for using the player's last location, but I understand how the question could be asked.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still question the premise.

By rule, it's determined by the location of his last foot to leave the floor. When he "started" anything isn't relevant. It's "where did he leave the floor?"

Ok by that then they missed it. The last foot to leave the floor was behind the arc.

[Back In The Saddle]

Perhaps the language could be more precise, in that it probably should specificially say that it depends on the location of the player who attempts the try. But, with that one obvious inferrence in place, the details of determing the shooter's location are clear.

SECTION 35 PLAYER LOCATION
ART. 1 . . . The location of a player or nonplayer is determined by where the player is touching the floor as far as being:
a. Inbounds or out of bounds.
b. In the frontcourt or backcourt.
c. Outside (behind/beyond) or inside the three-point field-goal line.
ART. 2 . . . When a player is touching the backcourt, out of bounds or the threepoint line, the player is located in backcourt, out of bounds,or inside the threepoint line, respectively.
ART. 3 . . . The location of an airborne player with reference to the three factors of Article 1 is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

Okay article 2 should probably say "touching on or within the three point line" instead of just touching the three point line, but that's another obvious inferrence.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Ok by that then they missed it. The last foot to leave the floor was behind the arc.

In your opinion.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still question the premise.

By rule, it's determined by the location of his last foot to leave the floor. When he "started" anything isn't relevant. It's "where did he leave the floor?"

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

In your opinion.

Remember, even though I used the term and I tried to take it back, I'm not talking about the rulebook definition of habitual shooting motion. I tried to make that clear - it was a point of time reference.


I should of said when he started to leave his feet for his shot. He had one foot in front, one behind, left foot came up first right foot second (You say my opinion, so I say in my opinion its very clear).


By the way I believe that they applied the rule correctly.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eyezen

I should of said when he started to leave his feet for his shot. He had one foot in front, one behind, left foot came up first right foot second (You say my opinion, so I say in my opinion its very clear).

By the way I believe that they applied the rule correctly.

If they applied the rule correctly, then your opinion is wrong. They ruled it a two.

If he had raised the front foot first and then jumped off his back foot, by rule it would have to be a 3. Soooooo, because they conflict, he only options are that the officials were wrong or your opinion is wrong. You can't have it both ways.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Remember, even though I used the term and I tried to take it back, I'm not talking about the rulebook definition of habitual shooting motion. I tried to make that clear - it was a point of time reference.


I should of said when he started to leave his feet for his shot. He had one foot in front, one behind, left foot came up first right foot second (You say my opinion, so I say in my opinion its very clear).


By the way I believe that they applied the rule correctly.

I realize that you believed at the time your terminology wasn't correct. I think the premise was wrong. I don't think it matters where his feet are when he starts to jump. It matters where he was last in contact with the floor when he jumped.

Again, however, if the front foot goes up so closely to the back foot that it takes frame-by-frame replay to determine it, it's a two. If the player starts his shooting motion and clearly lifts his front foot first, two or three points should be determined by his back foot.