3-Pointer???

[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]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

I disagree, I think. Your sentences do leave some things open, but if you're saying what I think you're saying...

If the foot in 2-point land comes up so slightly before the foot in 3-point land that it requires a frame-by-frame analysis to determine, the correct call is a 3 (by rule), but we do not fault those who rule a 2 (limitations of human observational abilities).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I disagree, I think. Your sentences do leave some things open, but if you're saying what I think you're saying...

If the foot in 2-point land comes up so slightly before the foot in 3-point land that it requires a frame-by-frame analysis to determine, the correct call is a 3 (by rule), but we do not fault those who rule a 2 (limitations of human observational abilities).

I agree with this.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When he "started" anything isn't relevant.

I thought starting anything wasn't relevant

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eyezen

I thought starting anything wasn't relevant

It's not, I only mentioned it to show that he could start his motion with both feet on the floor and still lift one foot first, having his position determined by the remaining foot on the floor. It was for your benefit.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

I'd amend this to say that if the front foot goes up so closely to the back foot that it takes frame-by-frame replay to determine it, it's inconclusive and therefore we should stick with the original call.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

I'd amend this to say that if the front foot goes up so closely to the back foot that it takes frame-by-frame replay to determine it, it's inconclusive and therefore we should stick with the original call.

Except that some people can notice things when looking at video frame-by-frame. To those people, the result is conclusive.

[Nevadaref]

The rule should be cleaned up or outright changed. There is no way that an official should have to judge which foot left the floor first when one is inside and the other is outside of the 3pt line.

The rule ought to be that each foot of the shooter must last touch the floor completely behind the 3pt line when jumping for a try or the shot is only worth two. That would make it clear and much simpler to officiate.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

I'd amend this to say that if the front foot goes up so closely to the back foot that it takes frame-by-frame replay to determine it, it's inconclusive and therefore we should stick with the original call.

To clarify, I'm disagreeing with those who say "if you can't tell on the replay, it's a two." I'm saying "if you can't tell on the replay, 'ruling on the field stands.'"

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

To clarify, I'm disagreeing with those who say "if you can't tell on the replay, it's a two." I'm saying "if you can't tell on the replay, 'ruling on the field stands.'"

Coach, I think that everyone here is agreeing with you, and that's certainly what the rule states.

However, what I think many are also saying is that, if it's so close that you need 20 minutes and a team of CIA experts to tell the difference between a 2 and a 3 on tape, we shouldn't fault the officials if they get it wrong after looking for 1-2 minutes on a 12" monitor (if they're lucky).