Question

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But it does matter if the ball has a chance to enter the basket from the throw. If A1 throws the ball from halfcourt and it hits B1 in the head, while he is standing under the basket, then bounces up and enters the basket from above, there is no way that three points should be scored.

The intent and purpose of the thrown ball/try rule for 3 points must be understood and applied correctly.

Why would this be any different than the diagonal pass to the corner which is deflected into the basket?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Why would this be any different than the diagonal pass to the corner which is deflected into the basket?

Because that pass was deflected more quickly, into the area of the basket. Kinda like the difference between a shot being blocked just out of the shooters hands and just before it goes into the ring.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

5.2.1 Situation C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by (b) B1 who is in the two-point area; The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. Ruling: In (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line.

I'm confused ??? I know that in the Nevadaref case, the basket would not count if the horn were to sound before the ball went in the basket, because the try ends when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, in this case by hitting B1 in the head, but I'm not sure that in Nevadaref case that the end of a try means that two points are scored instead of three?

This is another example of a case play meant for one situation and one situation only being extrapolated by some officials to something entirely unreleated.

While it is not stated in the case, the assumption is the typical case...that A1 is throwing the ball from behind the 3 point line and B1, who is touching the 2 point area, touches the ball in an attempt to block the pass/try near the time it leaves A1's hands.

It was never intended to apply to a ball that is thrown no where near the basket but is completely redirected by team B such that it goes into the basket.

[just another ref]

It was my understanding that the rule was changed, whenever that was, to take judgment out of this play. So now when the alley oop goes untouched into the basket, it counts 3. But, if in the course of this change, it gives us a couple of 3's in a lifetime such as the ones described above, how do we count them as 2, citing, "That's not what they meant."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

.......the try ends when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful.......

But when a thrown ball that was not intended to go in the basket in the first place goes in, especially when the case play specifies that it is okay if the ball is touched by a B player, standing in either the 2 point or 3 point areas, how can you count it as two?

"He can get lucky, but not that lucky."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But when a thrown ball that was not intended to go in the basket in the first place goes in, especially when the case play specifies that it is okay if the ball is touched by a B player, standing in either the 2 point or 3 point areas, how can you count it as two?

"He can get lucky, but not that lucky."

At some point it must cease to be a "thrown ball". When does this occur?

The rule meant only to remove the judgement in determining if the thrown ball was a try or an attempted pass....it was never intended to change when a try or an apparent try ends.

The effect of this rule is, for at least the purpose of determining the number of points scored, to consider a "thrown ball" from behind the 3-point line to be a try whether that was the intent of the thrower or not. The "thrown ball", effectively being a try, ends in the very same manner as a try...

"when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead" (4-41-4).

The point of the case play is to establish that a touch by a team B player doesn't end the try/throw. But that doesn't exclude the possibility that it may have already ended.

While this is not explicitly stated in the rulebook, it is the only conclusion that makes sense in the context of other rules. When this rule is read alone, other conclusions can be imagined, but they are not consistent and don't make any sense.

So, again, when does it cease to be a "thrown ball" for the purposes of 3-points? When the ball is traveling in a path such that it can not enter the basket without being redirected by another player or the floor.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

At some point it must cease to be a "thrown ball". When does this occur?

The rule meant only to remove the judgement in determining if the thrown ball was a try or an attempted pass....it was never intended to change when a try or an apparent try ends.

The effect of this rule is, for at least the purpose of determining the number of points scored, to consider a "thrown ball" from behind the 3-point line to be a try whether that was the intent of the thrower or not. The "thrown ball", effectively being a try, ends in the very same manner as a try...

"when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead" (4-41-4).

The point of the case play is to establish that a touch by a team B player doesn't end the try/throw. But that doesn't exclude the possibility that it may have already ended.

While this is not explicitly stated in the rulebook, it is the only conclusion that makes sense in the context of other rules. When this rule is read alone, other conclusions can be imagined, but they are not consistent and don't make any sense.

So, again, when does it cease to be a "thrown ball" for the purposes of 3-points? When the ball is traveling in a path such that it can not enter the basket without being redirected by another player or the floor.

Everything you say is reasonable and logical, but if this was the intent of the change, it seems to require as much, if not more, judgment as it did before.
After all, we are talking about 1 point. A1, at the free throw line, attempts to thread the needle with a bullet pass to A2 as he turns into the lane from the block. Instead, B2 gets a hand on the ball, which is deflected upward and enters the basket. If this pure accident can count two points, I see no reason why the same accident thrown from outside the arc can't count 3.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm confused ??? I know that in the Nevadaref case, the basket would not count if the horn were to sound before the ball went in the basket, because the try ends when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, in this case by hitting B1 in the head, but I'm not sure that in Nevadaref case that the end of a try means that two points are scored instead of three?

Originally Posted by just another ref

It was my understanding that the rule was changed, whenever that was, to take judgment out of this play. So now when the alley oop goes untouched into the basket, it counts 3. But, if in the course of this change, it gives us a couple of 3's in a lifetime such as the ones described above, how do we count them as 2, citing, "That's not what they meant."

Originally Posted by just another ref

But when a thrown ball that was not intended to go in the basket in the first place goes in, especially when the case play specifies that it is okay if the ball is touched by a B player, standing in either the 2 point or 3 point areas, how can you count it as two?

Because there is another case play which says that it is only worth TWO points! So there are two case plays seemingly giving opposite rulings! One must understand the proper context of each one in order to apply it correctly. One cannot just blindly follow the text of one of them.

Of course, I do believe that the rule should be rewritten so that this confusion is eliminated, but for now please recall this passage from near the front of the NFHS Rules Book:

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule.
Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.
It is the policy of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee that there be no
deviation from the rules unless experimental approval has been granted by the
NFHS liaison to the rules committee.

THE GAME –

Basketball is played by two teams of five players each. The
purpose of each team is to throw the ball into its own basket and to prevent the
other team from scoring. The ball may be thrown, batted, rolled or dribbled in any
direction, subject to restrictions laid down in the following rules.

Please study these two conflicting play rulings, both from the 2008-09 NFHS Case Book, and note that only by understanding the intent and purpose of the latter can the contradiction be resolved.

4.41.4 SITUATION B:

A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)

5.2.1 SITUATION C:

A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: (a) B1 who is in the three-point area; (b) B1 who is in the two-point area; (c) A2 who is in the three-point area; or (d) A2 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. RULING: In (a) and (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line. In (c), score three points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred behind the three-point line. In (d), score two points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred in the two-point area.

Okay, so what is the proper context in which to apply 5.2.1 Sit C part (b)?

It was written to alleviate a difficult judgment call for an official in trying to decide if a player throwing the ball from behind the three point line was attempting to score or not. It was NOT intended to reward a team with an extra point when the throw by that team clearly had no opportunity to score three points.

The following two case plays, also from the 2008-09 NFHS Case Book, demonstrate this. If the circumstances are mostly akin to the first play ruling, and a defender whose court position is within the two point area contacts the ball, then the offensive team is not to be punished by that fact and three points should still be scored. However, if the thrown ball clearly could not have scored three points, if not for the touch by the defender(s) located in the two point area, then the offense does not deserve three points and only two are scored.

5.2.1 SITUATION B:

With 2:45 left in the second quarter, B1 has the ball on the left wing in Team B's frontcourt, standing behind the three-point arc. B5 makes a backdoor cut toward the basket. B1 passes the ball toward the ring and B5 leaps for the potential "alley-oop" dunk. The ball, however, enters and passes through the goal directly from B1's pass and is not touched by B5. RULING: Score three points for Team B. A ball that is thrown into a team's own goal from behind the three-point arc scores three points, regardless of whether the thrown ball was an actual try for goal.

5.2.1 SITUATION D:

Following the free throws for a technical foul, A1 makes a throw-in from out of bounds at the division line opposite the table. The throw-in pass is deflected at A’s free-throw line by: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and it then goes directly through A’s basket. RULING: Score two points for Team A in both (a) and (b). The throw-in ended when the ball was touched by an inbounds player and the live ball subsequently passed through the basket. The fact it was not a tap or a try for goal does not affect the scoring of two points. (4-41-4)

I hope that eliminates any misunderstanding on this.

[Adam]

Nevada, 5.2.1D isn't relevant to this because it's a throwin pass. The only time this ball was legally touched in bounds was inside the arc.
I agree with you on intent and a desire to see this rewritten. 5.2.1D doesn't help, though.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is another example of a case play meant for one situation and one situation only being extrapolated by some officials to something entirely unreleated.

While it is not stated in the case, the assumption is the typical case...that A1 is throwing the ball from behind the 3 point line and B1, who is touching the 2 point area, touches the ball in an attempt to block the pass/try near the time it leaves A1's hands.

It was never intended to apply to a ball that is thrown no where near the basket but is completely redirected by team B such that it goes into the basket.

Well said.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The effect of this rule is, for at least the purpose of determining the number of points scored, to consider a "thrown ball" from behind the 3-point line to be a try whether that was the intent of the thrower or not. The "thrown ball", effectively being a try, ends in the very same manner as a try...

While that may very well be the intent, the actual effect is to make literally ANY thrown ball from beyond the arc worth 3 points if it goes in the basket without touching the floor or a teammate.

The rule was written incredibly badly, and directly conflicts with at least one case play ruling.

The ball does not stop being thrown simply because it is obvious that it's not going in the basket.

[jritchie]

The first case play, only counts it as 2 points, because the shot was over because we could tell it was not going in to the basket! The 2nd case play was tipped out behind the 3 point line and counts as 3 even though it probably wasn't even a shot. It does need to be re-written, but I think they are two totally different plays, so it really shouldn't be that difficult to figure out which one to use, although they could make it a whole lot easier on us and re-write it.

[M&M Guy]

What am I missing that's so hard? We still have to judge try vs. throw in these situations. For example - A1 attempts an alley-oop pass from outside the 3-pt. line, B1 fouls A1 on the arm, and the ball goes through the basket. If we judge it to be a pass, than no points are scored, because the ball is dead, and B1 is charged with a common foul. More than likely, we will judge it to be a shot, count the 3 points, and A1 will shoot one.

If that's the case, then the case plays Nevada posted do not really conflict at all. If we judge A1 to be passing, then 5.2.1 Sit. C applies. If B1 fouls A1, than no points will be awared even if the ball goes through the basket, because it is a common foul.

If we judge A1 to be shooting, then 4.41.4 Sit. B applies. If it is a try, than all the rules involving tries apply. A1 is fouled by B1 on a 3-pt. try, the ball goes below the ring and hits B2 on the head and bounces through the basket - no basket, because the try has ended.

Just because the Fed. eliminated judgement in try vs. throw involving counting points, doesn't mean they eliminated the judgement altogether.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

While that may very well be the intent, the actual effect is to make literally ANY thrown ball from beyond the arc worth 3 points if it goes in the basket without touching the floor or a teammate.

The very point of the rule was ONLY to remove judgement of try vs. pass...to treat both as a try if it goes in. NOTHING else was changed.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The rule was written incredibly badly, and directly conflicts with at least one case play ruling.

No conflict at all...when the case plays and rule are considered in context.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The ball does not stop being thrown simply because it is obvious that it's not going in the basket.

I ask again....when does the "thrown ball" cease to be a thrown ball? Given that there is no explicit and independant definition, we're left with it ending in the same way as a try (since the rule effectively indicates that we should treat the thrown ball as a try). If not, the "thrown ball" has no endpoint and team B could even catch the ball and shoot it into A's basket for 3 points (and we all know that team B can't score 3 for team A).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The very point of the rule was ONLY to remove judgement of try vs. pass...to treat both as a try if it goes in.

I agree that this was the intent of the rule change.

NOTHING else was changed.

This, however, is simply not true. The rule says that ANY thrown ball yada, yada, yada. ANY.

I ask again....when does the "thrown ball" cease to be a thrown ball? Given that there is no explicit and independant definition, we're left with it ending in the same way as a try

That is a totally arbitrary conclusion. Why not say that the thrown ball ends when it is controlled or given additional impetus by another player. That seems equally reasonable to me.

And your suggestion that "the rule effectively indicates that we should treat the thrown ball as a try" is also simply not true. If it were true, then we would award 3 free throws to the thrower if s/he were fouled trying to throw the alley-oop. We're not going to do that.