The Official Forum
Page 4 of 6 « First 23 4 56
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Pass to Head to Hoop (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/52304-pass-head-hoop.html)

Camron Rust Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 589222)
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.
Except that you're still assuming a definition for "thrown ball". When does it cease to be a "thrown ball"? My claim all along is that it is no longer a thrown ball when B bats the ball into in a new direction such that it goes into the goal. That is a new and independant act that changes everything.

By your interp, the "thrown ball" doesn't end at all, and that assumption creates a contradiction and goes against the explanation of the purpose of the rule. By my interp, the ball ceases to be thrown and such an interpretaion reconciles the possible contradictions and aligns with the expressed purpose of the rule.

26 Year Gap Wed Mar 18, 2009 01:19pm
Here is my interpreter's take on it...

In my opinion, it is clearly a 2-point goal. That said, there is room for interpretation. Rule 4-41-2 defines a "try" as an attempt at a player's own basket and goes on to state a player is "trying for goal" when "in the official's judgment the player is throwing or attempting to throw for goal." It is MY judgment, based on watching the video, that the player WAS NOT throwing for goal, but was rather making a pass since the ball was thrown "horizontally" to the floor and would never have gotten above the level of the ring, if not for hitting the player's head. Because of that, I would rule it a 2-point goal. Where the "interpretation" can come in would be the argument that 5-2-1 simply says that a "try" OR "thrown ball" from behind the arc counts for 3-points unless it hits a "team mate" inside the arc. The ball was clearly "thrown" from outside and it hit an opponent. I base MY interpretation on the wording of 4-41-2 and the player's "intent." When all else fails, go with 2-3!

Scrapper1 Wed Mar 18, 2009 01:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 589364)
it is no longer a thrown ball when B bats the ball into in a new direction such that it goes into the goal.
That's like saying a 3-point try that it touched outside the arc is no longer a try.

M&M Guy Wed Mar 18, 2009 01:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap (Post 589376)
Here is my interpreter's take on it...

In my opinion, it is clearly a 2-point goal. That said, there is room for interpretation. Rule 4-41-2 defines a "try" as an attempt at a player's own basket and goes on to state a player is "trying for goal" when "in the official's judgment the player is throwing or attempting to throw for goal." It is MY judgment, based on watching the video, that the player WAS NOT throwing for goal, but was rather making a pass since the ball was thrown "horizontally" to the floor and would never have gotten above the level of the ring, if not for hitting the player's head. Because of that, I would rule it a 2-point goal. Where the "interpretation" can come in would be the argument that 5-2-1 simply says that a "try" OR "thrown ball" from behind the arc counts for 3-points unless it hits a "team mate" inside the arc. The ball was clearly "thrown" from outside and it hit an opponent. <font color=red>I base MY interpretation on the wording of 4-41-2 and the player's "intent."</font color> When all else fails, go with 2-3!
While I like your interpreter's thought process, unfortunately it goes against the reason for the rule and case play - we are not supposed to judge intent on this. Ask him/her how you would judge a possible alley-oop pass that goes in?

M&M Guy Wed Mar 18, 2009 01:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 589364)
Except that you're still assuming a definition for "thrown ball". When does it cease to be a "thrown ball"? My claim all along is that it is no longer a thrown ball when B bats the ball into in a new direction such that it goes into the goal. That is a new and independant act that changes everything.
While I understand your interpretation, can you duplicate that logic elsewhere in the rules? For example, we know that a deflected shot continues to be a shot after the deflection. What about team control? A deflection isn't "an independent act that changes everything"; there continues to be team control after the deflection. How about a pass? If A1 passes the ball to A2, does the pass "end" if B1 deflects it, even though A2 ended up with the ball? Btw, there is a definition of "Pass" (4-31), and it also includes that pesky word, "throws".

26 Year Gap Wed Mar 18, 2009 02:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 589383)
While I like your interpreter's thought process, unfortunately it goes against the reason for the rule and case play - we are not supposed to judge intent on this. Ask him/her how you would judge a possible alley-oop pass that goes in?
The same could be said on a hard foul on a layup off a fast break. Was there an intent on the fouler's part to foul or to make a defensive play? I think the case can be made for either 2 or 3 points on that particular play. An alley oop pass, could have a chance to go in. A line drive pass, which I think is a point that most can agree upon in this case, is very different. And, I think that is the viewpoint of my interpreter. Not saying he is absolutely correct, but he did sit on the Fed rules committee for 4 years, so he knows firsthand about the discussions that take place at that level.

One thing is certain, his teammates in the next practice probably asked if they could try out that play.

Camron Rust Wed Mar 18, 2009 02:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 589386)
While I understand your interpretation, can you duplicate that logic elsewhere in the rules? For example, we know that a deflected shot continues to be a shot after the deflection. What about team control? A deflection isn't "an independent act that changes everything"; there continues to be team control after the deflection. How about a pass? If A1 passes the ball to A2, does the pass "end" if B1 deflects it, even though A2 ended up with the ball? Btw, there is a definition of "Pass" (4-31), and it also includes that pesky word, "throws".
How about this one:
SECTION 20 FREE THROW
<DD><DD></DD>ART. 3 . . . The free throw ends when the try is successful, when it is certain the try will not be successful, when the ball touches the floor or any player, or when the ball becomes dead. </DD>

or this one:
SECTION 40 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP
<DD><DD></DD>ART. 4 . . . The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful or when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead. </DD>

The deflected shot only continues to be a shot until it is certain that it will not be successful. It doesn't not require that it touch the floor, a teammate or be controlled by an opponent.

M&M Guy Wed Mar 18, 2009 02:37pm
Exactly. But not on the deflection, correct? The deflection alone is not the "new and independent act that changes everything". That was the point I was addressing.

But you continue to compare the throw with a try, where the word throw is also used in the definition of "pass". Can you use the same criteria to determine when a pass ends?

Camron Rust Wed Mar 18, 2009 02:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 589383)
While I like your interpreter's thought process, unfortunately it goes against the reason for the rule and case play - we are not supposed to judge intent on this.
Precisely!!! When there is an interpretation that requires a judgment of whether it is a try or not, such interpretation must be wrong. And your interpretation retains the need to judge whether it is a try or not.

When 4.41c and 5.2.1 are taken together, there is only one possible explanation that reconciles all of the cases, the rule, and the stated purpose of the rule.....the "thrown ball" ends (and the chance for it to be 3 end) at any time when it can be determined that the throw will not be successful. Subsequent actions which direct the ball to the basket are not part of the original "thrown ball". This is consistent with all other rules/cases regarding opportunities/attempts to score.

Camron Rust Wed Mar 18, 2009 02:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 589408)
Exactly. But not on the deflection, correct? The deflection alone is not the "new and independent act that changes everything". That was the point I was addressing.
It can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 589408)
But you continue to compare the throw with a try, where the word throw is also used in the definition of "pass". Can you use the same criteria to determine when a pass ends?
Yes. Just because A1 wanted the pass to go to A2 doesn't mean anything. When it is touched/batted by B2, doesn't that also satisfy the definition of a pass? What if it never makes it to A2 but B3 picks it up? When did it end? A1's pass ends when it touches any other player.

M&M Guy Wed Mar 18, 2009 02:48pm
Cameron - once again, I agree with your thought process, I agree it doesn't go with other rulings, etc. I agree we still need to judge intent on this very play if, perhaps, A1 gets fouled while passing/throwing/trying, even though we should ignore the intent when the ball goes through the basket. You given good arguments as to why we still should make the judgement as to whether it is a throw or a try. All I've said in this whole process is the rule and case play, <B>as written</B>, tells us it's a 3. Period. Whether I agree with the logic or not.

Camron Rust Wed Mar 18, 2009 03:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 589416)
All I've said in this whole process is the rule and case play, as written, tells us it's a 3. Period. Whether I agree with the logic or not.
And this is where I disagree...the rule and case playS (all of them taken together to get context) tell us it is a two....period.

26 Year Gap Wed Mar 18, 2009 03:07pm
note to observers
 
This thread is a great example of discussion of a play with differing viewpoints. No namecalling is occurring. Case plays and rules notations are cited. Not everyone is in agreement. But, that doesn't make anyone wrong or inferior or anything else. It is civil dialogue and that is often missing on discussion boards of any type.

M&M Guy Wed Mar 18, 2009 03:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap (Post 589422)
This thread is a great example of discussion of a play with differing viewpoints. No namecalling is occurring. Case plays and rules notations are cited. Not everyone is in agreement. But, that doesn't make anyone wrong or inferior or anything else. It is civil dialogue and that is often missing on discussion boards of any type.
Shut up.

:D

M&M Guy Wed Mar 18, 2009 03:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 589421)
And this is where I disagree...the rule and case playS (all of them taken together to get context) tell us it is a two....period.
Geeze, I hope when we're officiating together, we won't be having this long discussion at center court while the teams are waiting for the final decision...

:D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26am.
Page 4 of 6 « First 23 4 56
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1