The rule is ambiguous....it leaves terms undefined. The case is specific. The goal counts as 2 if it goes in after touching the floor, a teammate inside the arc, or even a defender when such touching occurs after the orignal thow can no longer be successful as originally thrown (see 4.41.4B).

5.2.1C is talking about the very common and typical case of a defender (basically on or near the 3 point line) attempting to block a typical shot that subsequently goes in. The fact that the defender touches the ball doesn't change the status of the attempt/throw. The throw is what it is is when the thrower releases it until a teammate inside the arc touches it or it no longer has a chance to go in with out assistance/redirection.

Taking this one rule literally and in a vacuum, as you want us to do, the defensive team could actually bat the ball around ala volleyball for 5 minutes then tap it into the basket to score 3 for A. In fact, since the thrown ball continues to be eligible to be 3 points until the ball touches the floor or a teammate (as you define it), the defensive team could actually catch the thrown ball (from outside the 3-point arc) ...remembering that you claim that the thrown ball and the chance to score 3 ONLY end when it touches the floor or a teammate....and "shoot" it into A's basket to score 3 for A. Do you really want to continue to suggest that this is the intended meaning?

I Think It's In One Of Those Old Interpretations ???
 

NFHS Rule 11-2-3-d: Five points are awarded for basket interference by a defensive player, at the opponents basket, if the ball bounces off the head of a defensive player, who is inside the three point arc, before entering the cylinder, or touching the ring. It's seven points if it happens a second time in the same game, no matter which team commits the basket interference under these conditions.

<font color=red>Which terms are undefined? "Try" and "tap" are specifically defined, so that only leaves a "thrown ball" as the only possible undefined term. I would think it's meaning is still obvious.</font color>
<font color=green>You have just completely re-written 4-41. Nowhere in 4-41 does it include the term "throw". A try and a throw are two completely different terms.</font color>


We agree. It would also apply to the alley-oop pass that originates outside the arc and deflects off the defender's hand into the basket.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your thought process, you are adding in something that is not backed by rule. You are interchanging the definition of a "try" with "throw", and we both know they aren't the same. A player who is fouled during a "try" and during a "throw" are not treated equally.

Huh?? :confused: When did I ever say that a change of possession (due to the catch) still has "throw" continuing? Now you're starting to channel Nevada's other-world plays... :D

I have said all along this does not change our judgement as to a try vs. pass/throw. If A1 is fouled during a throw, rather than a shot, and the ball goes in, it will be a common foul, not a shooting foul, and the basket does not count. Don't confuse this rule as saying a throw is treated the same as a shot. All it is saying is it the point value of the thrown ball going through the basket is the same as if it were a shot. Nothing more, nothing less.

The point that is ambiguous is when it ceases to be a thrown ball. There is NO definition for that. If you catch a ball that some throws to you, you are holding a thrown ball....since thrown is past tense and has no defined ending.


When the ball goes into A's basket solely and directly by contact by B, it will always be 2....even if the previous contact was by A from outside the arc. If team B is the one who puts it into A's basket, it is always 2 points.

No. 4-41 gives us a clear view of the intent of the rules....that when the chance to score 3 is clearly unsucessful, it can no longer be a 3. Sure it doesn't spell it out in so many words but it is not like it is difficult language to understand.

So, you're saying A should never get credit for 3, if the shot is released from outside the arc and B happens to make contact with the shot? The rule states when one team, with control, (try, tap, or thrown ball) puts the ball into their own basket from outside the arc, three points points are scored, even if it is touched by the opponent.

Agreed, because "putting it into the opponent's basket" is assuming some sort of control, correct? We all agree touching the ball does not constitute control, right? So, just because B touched it last before going in the basket doesn't make B "responsible" for the ball going in the basket.

I don't necessarily disagree with the line of thinking that it doesn't seem fair that 3 points would be scored in the case of the OP. But it is part of the same loophole that allows 3 points in the case of the partially blocked shot, or the same loophole that allows us to score 3 points in the event of an alley-oop pass that misses the teammate and goes in the basket instead.

At least reference all my words rather than just the two that let you make the wrong point.

The whole point of the rule change was clearly and expressly communicated to remove judgement of whether a ball thrown by A that goes into the basket was a try or not...assume it was effectively try and count it for 3. That basic assumption was being made in absense of complicating factors. Then, just to cover the commonly possible variations, it was also declared that a defender "touching" such a ball (one that was thrown in such a way it might be a try) didn't change it's status. Taken in a vacuum, one can certainly come up with absurd rulings based on the letter of the rule...but taken in context with the purpose of the rule, it is not hard to realize what it means and when it applies. It simply doesn't apply to a ball that is not thrown torward the hoop.

I guess I'm not following - what "absurd rulings" have I come up with?

Can you back this statement up, either with a specific rule or case play comment? You cannot, and this is where I have a problem with your ruling. In fact, if you want to argue if it should not count because the ball had no chance to go in prior to the deflection, then <B>almost every deflection that goes in</B> had no chance to go in prior to the deflection, right?

You just made my entire point, Camron. Thanks!! :)

But as you just pointed out above, we no longer judge whether it might be a try. That was "the whole point of the rule change", as you stated. That's precisely why they included the words "any thrown ball" in the rule -- so you don't judge whether it might be a try. If the ball is thrown from the floor beyond the arc and goes in the basket, it's three points. Period.

We all know what they INTENDED the rule to be. But that's not what the rule IS. They wrote it badly. It needs to be re-written to correspond with the case plays.

Change it so that if it's not a try, it has to go straight in without touching anyone. Should be a simple change.

You just made my entire point, Scrappy. Thanks!! :)

Ok, so A1 jumps from behind the arc with a kind of a two-handed shot towards the basket. B1 instinctively goes to block it, and gets a couple of fingers on it. Meanwhile, A2 is next to the basket, jumps up and mis-times the jump due to the tip. The ball ends up going through the basket.

Was it a try or not? With your rule change, you now have to make that decision because B1 deflected it. You now have to determine if A2 was going up to receive a pass, or to redirect the tipped ball into the basket if he was able.

Isn't that the purpose of the rule as written? We no longer have to make this type of decision. And this type of decision, though rare, happens much more often than the situation in the OP. So, to me it seems to be a fair trade-off. If you can find a better way to re-write the rule as intended without any loopholes, I'm all ears. (Or eyes, since we're talking over the internet.)

You would have had to make that determination if B1 fouled A1 anyway. Do we really need to dumb down the rules that much?

I actually agree with you. But I guess there might've been too many instances where baskets were being waved off on questionable passes that were really shots, and the committee decided to take that decision away from the officials. In doing that though, they created the loophole of awarding 3 points in the event of the OP. The Rule of Unintended Consequences.

I took out all the extra junk for you. :)