this would not be a try for goal it is a pass therefore it can only count as two points as it is directed to the basket from inside the arc.
If the same scenario occured with the pass coming from outside the arc it would still only count two - UNLESS THE OFFICIAL RULED IT A TRY.

That would be incorrect, as per 5-2-1, and case play 5.2.1 Sit. C.

This is last years I believe
so it has changed?

Rule 5
SECTION 2 SCORING
ART. 1 . . . A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points. A ball that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown. See 4-5-4.

In NCAA the determination is that if a Thrown ball from behind the arc is deflected by a teammate it is two points period, if the thrown ball had the posobility to enter the basket and is deflected by a team mate it counts 3 if it did not have the posibility to enter the basket it counts two.

so Possibility to enter basket = try
no possibility to enter basket = pass

Nope, it hasn't changed, the key words are in red above. Also, notice the wording that if the try or thrown ball (aka: pass) hits a <B> teammate</B>, it will always count as two points. However, it the pass hits a <B>defender</B> before hitting the floor, it can still count as 3 points. Look at the case play for specific examples.

I do not have the case book here, but I take it what you are saying is basically what the NCAA version covers more clearly =
possibility to enter count it
no chance it is going in call it two?

It does say ANY, but the ball does cease to be come such a thrown ball at some point.

No, it is not and arbitrary conclusion. It is derived form the only rule we have addressing the subject...

"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).

Note that this refers to the throw ending, not the try ending.

I've provided a rule that fits, makes sense, and is consistent with other rules and the explantions given for what the rule change meant to address....no one else has provided anything to the contrary.
Because the impetus by another player doesn't negate the try/throw...

• • A1, behind the arc, shoots/throws at the basket
  • B1 swats the ball and very slightly deflects it
  • the ball still goes off the backboard and in
  • count it for 3.

Don't get hung up on the imperfection or ambiguity in the wording of the rule when it is clear what is intended. The rule book is not written by lawyers in excruciatingly convoluted and exhaustive legalease and shouldn't be interpreted as if it were.

It's all fruit; but is it the same fruit?
 

You fail to acknowledge the two different contexts in which the word "throw" is being used.

4-41 is the definition of the technical and foundational term "try", what it is, when it begins, when it ends. To define such a term requires the use of another, more general-purpose word describing the action a "try" encompasses. That word is "throw". Of course 4-41-4 uses the word "throw" rather than "try" to describe when a "try" ends. You cannot define when a "try" ends in terms of when the "try" ends. That would be circular reasoning.

OTOH, the inclusion of the word "throw" in 5-2-1 alongside "try" and "tap" specifically calls it out as something different than a "try", something not "an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket."

Arguing that the use of the phrase "the throw is unsuccessful", ripped from the context of a throw that by definition is a try, should apply also to a "throw" that specifically is not a "try", is comparing apples and oranges.

The point is that the rule was to make a "thrown ball" analogous to to a "try" when it was possible that it could be a try. Everyone knows what the purpose of the rule is and to argue it means anything else is just silly. Don't get hung up on the narrow letter of the rule....that's not the way the rule book was ever written or meant to be read. What I've claimed is not inconsistent with any NFHS official explanation or comment on why the rule was changed and what it was meant to address.

Suggestion: Ball thrown from outside the arc counts 3 unless it touches a teammate inside the arc or drops below the level of the basket first.

So when B1 deflects the pass just after its release and while it is well below the level of the ring, and it flies way up into the air and drops through the goal, how many points would your rule award? ;)

Second suggestion: A ball thrown from outside the arc shall count 3 points unless touched by a teammate in the 2 point area or, after having been above the basket, is redirected above the basket a second time by contact with an opponent or the floor.

Otherwise known as: You can't bounce in a trey.

Still doesn't work....the thrown ball could be on its way up in a pass that is clearly away form the basket.

My suggestionn: A ball thrown from outside the 3 point arc shall be considered a try if it enters the goal prior encountering any event that normally ends a try.

If you consider it a try, then when B1 fouls A1 during this action, it is a common foul or a shooting foul?

The whole point was to remove judgement of try/pass and I would think that should extend to related fouls. It would be a mess to count it 3 points but declare that it was not a try and send the player to the line for 2 FTs (double bonus).

Likewise, no matter what we do, we're still left with the case of the ball not going in and a foul. We have to judge pass/try and award 3 shots or the bonus/posession.

As much as some would like to believe that this rule (in any form) eliminates judgement, it only relocates it.

Camron - the reason I asked the question is to point out that I think the committee is is just eliminating one small part of the judgement, not the overal judgement as to try vs. throw. We all know any live ball that passes through the basket is 2 points (try, tap, throw, bounces off B1's head, etc.); no real judgement involved. I believe the rule used to read that it had to be ruled a try to score 3 points from outside the arc. But then we had the situation where A1 throws the alley-oop to A2, but it goes through the basket instead, so now we had to make a judgement as to whether that was a try, therefore worth 3 points, or actually a pass, which would only be worth 2. The committee decided to eliminate this particular judgement call.

What I was trying to point out was we still have the other factors of try vs. throw; for example, in determining whether a foul will be ruled a common foul or shooting foul. So, instead of confusing things by combining elements of trys and throws (a throw "ends" when it's below the rim, for example?), let's keep the rest of the judgement still intact. If it's a try, all of the pertinent rules apply. If it's an obvious throw/pass, then those rules still apply.