3-Pointer???
 

Did anyone happen to notice that Rose jumped back from inside the line and banked it home and the ref gave him 3 instead of 2??

It was corrected via replay.

Yeah
 

I saw that coming out of commercial.

Look close. His left foot is in the air before his right foot lifts off. Shoulda been three.

That certainly was close. I was of the opinion that it should have been a 3...the front foot lifted first (barely) which means his position on the floor was determined by the location of his back foot when it left the floor. But again, it was so very close, I can't fault them calling it a two.

I thought as much as well. IIRC, sideline screens aren't all that large. And they're likely not in HD resolutions either.

The NFL went to HD displays for their IR displays that the R views to uphold/reverse a challenged play.

IMO, with HD readily available, and way cheaper than it ever has been, there's no reason not to implement HD. Where possible, use native HD resolution; none of this 1366x7?? crap.

I do not think that nitpicking to this degree is consistent with the spirit of the rule. If we have to slide a tongue depressor under his foot to see if it's in the air a millisecond before the other one, it's a 2. Nobody except on this thread has argued otherwise and, for once, I agree with them.

If they're going to implement IR, I think that's great. Pretty much every pro sport needs it. And some sports at the highest level of the amateur variety need it as well. So if they're going to do it, do it right! I wouldn't want an official to use an Acme Thunderer, since they have a higher chance of not performing when it's needed. Same goes for the tools to review plays.

My terminology is probably misplaced, but he had one foot inside the line when the habitual shooting motion started.

Again, I don't know the rule specifics, but this is how I would think about it. If a player has an odd shooting style where is front foot is 2 feet in front of his back foot, and he raises the front foot first during his shooting motion, is one supposed to use his back foot to measure shooting location? Seems like a strange rule to me if that is the case.

Absolutely irrelevant. A lot of players start their motion behind the line and make a final "plant" on or in front of it prior to jumping for their shot. You still give them two points. When the shooting motion starts isn't relevant to whether it's a two or a three.

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.

You forgot the part where I stated my terminology was misplaced. But thanks.

It wasn't the terminology I was taking issue with, it was the premise.

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.

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

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 </b>didn't</b> 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.

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?"

It was a 2
 

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought starting anything wasn't relevant ;) :D

On the radio yesterday (WMVP), the story was Jim Nance told the refs at the break it was a two. So they took a look. Not that one point meant anything to the outcome.
And he got it wrong, frame-by-frame. It's the national championship - yeah, you're gonna look fxf.

Tiger better watch his putts this week. ;)

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. :)

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.

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.

I disagree. I think that such a rule change would hamper offensive moments and take away from the grace of the game.

Let me for a minute think about the number of times that I've had to determine if a shot is a 2 or 3 as the situation presented itself in the NCAA game. I think the answer is less than 2.

And on TV? Maybe a few...

The fact that we have people arguing that this shot should have been a three is enough proof for me that we need a clarification/change. I cannot believe that when the 3pt shot was added to the game that it was the intent or vision of the rule writers that such an attempt be worth three points.

BTW ... grace of the game? ;)

Challenge for today: find video of a shot from the 3 point line where one foot is lifted noticeably before the other. My theory is that it just about doesn't happen. As for the case in point, my recollection is that the shooter was not squared up,** and he started to rise up on the front foot first. But as he extended to actually jump and take the shot both feet left the floor too close together to make a call without replay. Even after looking at replay, I thought it was a 2.





I think this is when the hop comes in which was mentioned in the newspaper article. The shooter adjusts one, or often both feet, before taking a jump shot.

Replay of the game was on again a little while ago. First time I had watched the play using frame by frame. The foot inside the line leaves the floor, I believe, 3 frames before the other foot. I did a little research and found reference to 24 to 30 frames per second on dvr, so suffice to say that 3 frames ain't a very long time. Packer explained the situation: "That foot was part of his release foot."

Approximately 30 frames per second. 3 frames ~ 0.1s.

IIRC, there was once a theory that the human eye can't differentiate if 1 frame isn't inline with the rest of the video. I don't believe this conjecture.

"Release foot?" WTF?!

I may have misunderstood, (you ever misunderstand Packer?) but I believe this was a direct quote.

I'm sure it was.

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).