|
|||
Quote:
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?
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association Last edited by Camron Rust; Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 02:32am. |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
||||
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
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 almost every deflection that goes in had no chance to go in prior to the deflection, right?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
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.)
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Official Head-to-Head Rule | superhornet | Softball | 10 | Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:50am |
Hoop-It-Up | gostars | Basketball | 1 | Sat Sep 04, 2004 07:49am |
Hoop-It-Up | OverAndBack | Basketball | 24 | Fri Aug 20, 2004 01:20pm |
Hoop Wizard | Dan_ref | Basketball | 3 | Wed Dec 03, 2003 04:38pm |
Good hoop? | Bchill24 | Basketball | 27 | Fri Nov 15, 2002 10:31am |