Pass to Head to Hoop

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Did I see the official signaled only 2 points?

He was well beyond the arc - should've been 3.

No, it is a 2. We've been through this before and while the rule seems to indicated it shoud be a three, other case plays give us the intent of the rule. The intent is not to make ball that was not going towards the basket into a three points when a defender bats/heads in to the basket. That rule is very clearly intended only to apply to balls thrown in such a way that they may enter the basket as thrown....that defensive "touching" doesn't alter the chance to score a three. Sure it doesn't spell it out in so many words but the writers of the rule expect the officials reading it to have some amount of common sense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, it is a 2. We've been through this before and while the rule seems to indicated it shoud be a three, other case plays give us the intent of the rule. The intent is not to make ball that was not going towards the basket into a three points when a defender bats/heads in to the basket. That rule is very clearly intended only to apply to balls thrown in such a way that they may enter the basket as thrown....that defensive "touching" doesn't alter the chance to score a three. Sure it doesn't spell it out in so many words but the writers of the rule expect the officials reading it to have some amount of common sense.

Then why 5.2.1C?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

By rule, this should be a 3. Any thrown ball that starts outside the arc and then goes in a player's own basket without touching the floor, a teammate or an official counts as 3. I think it's 5-2-1.

Having said that, there's NO WAY that this type of play should be awarded 3 points. It was obviously not a try for goal, it was just a lucky bounce.

There is a case play (I can't remember the reference) in which a 3-point try falls short of the goal, bounces off a defender and then goes in the basket. It is ruled as a 2-point basket because the try clearly ended. This, IMHO, clearly contradicts the rule but is the correct ruling.

5-2-1 needs to be re-written so that if it applies only to the "alley-oops" play (where it MIGHT have been a try) and not to "any" thrown ball (which is obviously NOT a try).

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it
hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through
the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and
below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are
scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, it is a 2. We've been through this before and while the rule seems to indicated it shoud be a three, other case plays give us the intent of the rule. The intent is not to make ball that was not going towards the basket into a three points when a defender bats/heads in to the basket. That rule is very clearly intended only to apply to balls thrown in such a way that they may enter the basket as thrown....that defensive "touching" doesn't alter the chance to score a three. Sure it doesn't spell it out in so many words but the writers of the rule expect the officials reading it to have some amount of common sense.

I agree.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

the writers of the rule expect the officials reading it to have some amount of common sense.

Here's common sense: read the rule and follow what it says. That seems like common sense to me. The rule says it's 3 points. The case says it's 2 points. They clearly are contradictory.

5-2-1 needs to be re-written to reflect what they really want the rule to be: if it MIGHT be a try, it's 3 points. If it's obvious that it's NOT a try, then it's still 2 points.

[BillyMac]

Rookie officials take note: I believe that goaltending could not be called on this play, it's not a try, however basket interference could be called, because basket interference does not have to involve a try.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Rookie officials take note: I believe that goaltending could not be called on this play, it's not a try, however basket interference could be called, because basket interference does not have to involve a try.

So if BI occurs, Billy, how many points are you going to award?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So if BI occurs, Billy, how many points are you going to award?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Here's common sense: read the rule and follow what it says. That seems like common sense to me. The rule says it's 3 points. The case says it's 2 points. They clearly are contradictory.

5-2-1 needs to be re-written to reflect what they really want the rule to be: if it MIGHT be a try, it's 3 points. If it's obvious that it's NOT a try, then it's still 2 points.

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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).

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.
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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

Huh?? 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...

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

When the ball goes into A's basket solely and directly by contact by B, it will always be 2

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If team B is the one who puts it into A's basket, it is always 2 points.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.
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.

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.