|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
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!
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it. |
|
|||
That's like saying a 3-point try that it touched outside the arc is no longer a try.
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) Last edited by M&M Guy; Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 01:38pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
One thing is certain, his teammates in the next practice probably asked if they could try out that play.
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it. |
|
|||
Quote:
SECTION 20 FREE THROW or this one: SECTION 40 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP 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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
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?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
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, as written, tells us it's a 3. Period. Whether I agree with the logic or not.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
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 |