Pass to Head to Hoop

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It simply doesn't apply to a ball that is not thrown torward the hoop.

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?

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

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.

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.

[Adam]

Change it so that if it's not a try, it has to go straight in without touching anyone. Should be a simple change.

[M&M Guy]

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.

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

[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.

[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.