Question
 

A–1 from behind the 3-point arc attempts a diagonal pass to a teammate in the corner. B–1 deflects the pass which enters the basket.

Official awards team A 3 points. Is the official correct?


The correct answer is no. I can't figure out why the answer is no though. Does anyone know?

Who said the correct answer is no?

Only a try counts as three when deflected. If A1's pass went directly into the basket, it would be three points.

5-2-1

5.2.1 C a

Two, Or Three ???
 

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.

Yeah I got this "wrong", but I think my wrong answer was actually right. If the opposing team touches the ball, it is still a 3.

I didn't have the book, I was trying to come up with a reason for an answer that seemed to already be given. Not the first time I've been wrong, and it won't be the last.

When was the question first written? I think this answer may have "changed" (or there was a clarification / interp from FED) about 4 years ago.

I think it was last year. I've emailed one of our upper level board members to see if the answer key has any misprints.

I thought "A" players were on defense, this could be a press situation and it is not "A's" basket, the OP doesn't say it is a try.

The standard is that A is offense, and B is defense. Also, it says A1 attempts a pass, that puts them on offense. The ball is released from behind A1'a arc.

The point of the question is that it doesn't matter whether or not it's a try.

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.

You mean beside the fact that the actual rule says that 3 points should be scored?

And the rule should be written (or re-written) correctly.

Two, Or Three ???
 

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

two conflicting case book plays
 

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! :D 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 –

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:

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.

5.2.1 SITUATION B:

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. :)

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.

Well said.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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

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.

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.

This Is Giving Me A Headache ...
 

Nevadaref: Thanks for your research and citations. If I recall correctly, when the NFHS first went with the three point try, officials had to differentiate between a real try (three points), and a pass that accidentally went into the basket (two points), both from behind the arc. A few years later, the NFHS took that judgment away and said that any thrown ball from behind the arc counted as three points, a pass, or a shot. You're right, in that there seems to be a contradiction between 4.41.4 SITUATION B, and 5.2.1 SITUATION C. From this contradiction, it appears that the NFHS still wants us to determine the difference between a pass that goes in, and a shot. Is this some kind space time warp? I'm confused. I hope that somebody with some contacts at the NFHS can get this settled once and for all. If I remember correctly, didn't one of our Forum members date Mary Struckhoff back when they were in high school, and doesn't he have her personal email address?

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.

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: 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.

Billy, the only solution of these apparently conflicting case plays is to conclude that the "3-point thrown ball" is only to apply to a ball that is thrown in such a way that it has a chance to the enter the basket without any redirection....whether it is the intent of the thrower or not....and that a mere touch by team B doesn't negate the chance for scoring 3 ponts. And, further, that it can no longer be a three if there is no chance to enter the basket without a deflection. This notion is only way to reconcile the various posted situations .