Pass to Head to Hoop

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Not any that you've come up with but the ones that are implied as result from interpreting the rule as you do.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Not with a case or rule but I can with the reason the rule was introduced to start with. It was a direct and specific attempt to address the issue of player throwing the ball that goes in...is it a 3 or is it a 2? It was a specific rule to address a specific issue of when the referee could reasonably question whether it was a try or not. It did not originate out of a question of passes across the key that got deflected into the basket.

It comes down to knowing the purpose of the rule, not just the rule in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

Right??? No, not right. There are several trajectories that are toward and roughly in line with that basket that will end in a sucessful basket...those are the ones of interest and for which this rule is addressing. But none of potentially successful throws include a trajectory that is in a direction not toward the basket.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

No, I did exactly the opposite. I can not imagine why you find it so difficult understand the basic purpose of the rule.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

It IS what was intended, even if the words are poorly written. We're not "lawyers" making a case on the definition of the work "is". We're to undertand what the purpose of the rules are and apply them inteligently....not blindly and by the letter of what is written.

Tell me one thing....when does the thrown ball cease to be thrown...and give me a citation in the rule book that defines it. Since it is not there, all we have is 4.41C to explain the intent of the committee....that when the ball can no longer possibly go in without redirection, it can no longer be a 3.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by TiManGR

You know things are going your way when you make a pass that hits a defender in the forehead and drops in...

YouTube - Tri Unity vs Potters House Off the head shot

Email it to your interpreter & maybe it will find its way to the rules committee.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not with a case or rule but I can with the reason the rule was introduced to start with. It was a direct and specific attempt to address the issue of player throwing the ball that goes in...is it a 3 or is it a 2? It was a specific rule to address a specific issue of when the referee could reasonably question whether it was a try or not.

I agree. Well, other than your addition of the word "reasonably". I didn't see that word in either the rule or case play.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It did not originate out of a question of passes across the key that got deflected into the basket.

How can you differentiate, by rule, between a pass across the key and a pass towards a teammate next to the basket? How far away, by rule, should we consider the pass "not towards the basket"? Is it measured in feet? Is it measured in degrees? Most importantly, have you seen any language from the Fed. that verifies this particular point of view? Or, is it simply as you stated previously: "It was a direct and specific attempt to address the issue of player throwing the ball that goes in...is it a 3 or is it a 2?"

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Right??? No, not right. There are several trajectories that are toward and roughly in line with that basket that will end in a sucessful basket...those are the ones of interest and for which this rule is addressing. But none of potentially successful throws include a trajectory that is in a direction not toward the basket.

This was simply my attempt at pointing out the flaw in the logic on judging whether a pass has a chance to be a successful basket. It can be argued that most shots/passes/throws where the trajectory has been changed, and then goes in, was off-line to begin with. The same as if the shot/pass was on-line, then deflected, would be a greater chance of then not going in. My point is we do not need to make that judgement, as that judgement has not been specified in either the rule or case play.

One other point - I think you may be attempting to equate a "throw" with a "try". A try does have specific criteria that says says when it ends, what happens if a foul is committed on a player attempting a try, etc.. However, I would equate a throw with a pass, given a foul on player doing either would result in the same penalty. Therefore, when does a pass end? More specifically, does it really matter?

Again, I don't disagree that this seems to be an unintended consequence of the way the rule and case play are written. But, until I see some specifc direction that states otherwise, I'm forced to adjudicate as written.

[Camron Rust]

New angle....consider this...

A1 shoots/trys from 3-point range. The ball passes below the rim and is deflected into the basket by team B.....2 points...per 4.41C...no ambiguity in this case play.

A1 throws from 3-point range. The ball passes below the rim and is deflected into the basket by team B....3 points....per your interpretation.

If your interpretation were true, we'd be left with EXACTLY the same problem that the rule purports to eliminate. Was it a try or not? The answer to that question affects the number of points scored.

However, the rule says that the ruling is not to be dependent on whether it is a try or not....that no matter how it starts (thrown ball or a try) the score is to be the same. If it is not to depend on judgment of whether it is a try or a throw, then the two methods must both start and end in the same manner...otherwise we're left with the same judgment that is supposed to have been eliminated. We have very clear rules on when a try ends so it follows that a "throw" must also end in the same manner even if not explicitly spelled out.

As such, we have a case that explicitly says it is a 2 when the original throw can no longer go in, then it is a 2 no matter how it left the thrower's hands....throw or try. Remember there is no judgment about whether it is a try or throw.

We're left with judgment, but a completely different judgment. Before, we had to divine the intent of the player who threw the ball. Now, our judgment is applied to observable facts....does the ball have a chance to go in or not...when the answer turns to "not", the try/throw is over. Yes, we still have judgment but it is a completely different one.


Case 5.2.1C is irrelevant. It is simply saying that a defense touch by itself doesn't change the status of the ball. It makes no mention and has no effect on the ending of a try/throw.

[M&M Guy]

Camron - I agree with your reasoning that the result of a try that falls below the rim is treated differently than a throw/pass that falls below the rim. I've never argued that point. All I'm saying is the rule and case play, as written, do treat them differently whether we agree with the logic or not.

So, until I see something in writing from the Fed about it, I have to make the call as written, not what I think is "fair".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron - I agree with your reasoning that the result of a try that falls below the rim is treated differently than a throw/pass that falls below the rim. I've never argued that point. All I'm saying is the rule and case play, as written, do treat them differently whether we agree with the logic or not.

So, until I see something in writing from the Fed about it, I have to make the call as written, not what I think is "fair".

Except that the rule is/was advertised as changing the rules so that we would treat them the same. So, that implies that anyone reading them to be different is misreading one of them.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, I did exactly the opposite.

With all due respect, you proved my point exactly.

I can not imagine why you find it so difficult understand the basic purpose of the rule.

I understand completely the basic purpose of the rule. I've even typed it out 2 or 3 times just in this thread. But the actual rule is explicitly different from what is intended. It's as if the traveling rule was re-written to say "A player shall not take 3 steps while holding the ball," and then there was a case play that ruled a travel after picking up and putting down the pivot foot.

We'd all know that they meant the rule to be the same, because there's the case play. But the rule doesn't say what they meant it to say. It directly contradicts the case play. 5-2-1 is the same situation. We all know what it intends. But what it says is distinctly different.

[Nevadaref]

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I understand completely the basic purpose of the rule. I've even typed it out 2 or 3 times just in this thread. But the actual rule is explicitly different from what is intended. ...

We'd all know that they meant the rule to be the same, because there's the case play. But the rule doesn't say what they meant it to say. It directly contradicts the case play. 5-2-1 is the same situation. We all know what it intends. But what it says is distinctly different.

Or, many are failing to acknowledge that there is a simple, basic assumption that is implied that the writers of the rule felt was so obvious that it was not necessary to include it.

They gave us a new rule with an explanation of what it was for and the situation for which it was intended. They kept it short and concise expecting that officials were sufficiently intelligent to know how to apply it properly. Now we have a contingent that insists that the rule doesn't mean what they writers said it meant and are trying to apply it in a place it was never intended for.

I'm going to trust the writers of the rule and not try to impart some alternative meaning just because their word choice doesn't exhaustively cover all the weird convolutions that some can come up with.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

just because their word choice doesn't exhaustively cover all the weird convolutions that some can come up with.

Here's the whole problem, Camron. Their word choice DOES cover EXHAUSTIVELY all the weird convolutions because they chose the words, "ANY thrown ball". "Any". As in, all. As in, every single one, exhaustively.

Just change it to say what they really mean. That's all I'm suggesting.

[BillyMac]

2008-09 IAABO Refresher Exam
7. A-1, from behind the 3 point line, throws the ball toward his/her basket for a catch and dunk. The ball is on its downward flight outside the cylinder above the ring level and in the judgment of the official has a chance of entering the basket when A-2 catches the ball and dunks it. The official rules this is goaltending and disallows the basket. Is the official correct?
Answer 7. Yes Rule 5 Section 2 Art 1; Rule 4 Section 22, Rule 9 Section 12

I thought that one of the guidelines for goaltending was that it had to be a try. I got this one wrong, and I'm still upset about it. To me, throwing the ball toward the basket for a catch and dunk is a pass, not a try.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Here's the whole problem, Camron. Their word choice DOES cover EXHAUSTIVELY all the weird convolutions because they chose the words, "ANY thrown ball". "Any". As in, all. As in, every single one, exhaustively.

Just change it to say what they really mean. That's all I'm suggesting.

Yea, what he said.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I thought that one of the guidelines for goaltending was that it had to be a try. I got this one wrong, and I'm still upset about it. To me, throwing the ball toward the basket for a catch and dunk is a pass, not a try.

Well, to be picky, it must be a try or tap. But, otherwise, you would be correct. Ask someone what the call would be if B1 fouled A1 - would they consider it a shooting foul? If so, than A2's catch would be goaltending. If they rule B1's foul is a common foul, because A1 was passing or throwing the ball, than A2 cannot be goaltending. (Btw, the basket would not count anyway because the foul would cause the ball to become dead immediately, since it was not a shot.)