Pass to Head to Hoop

[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.

[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.

[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 Snaqwells

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

Ok, so A1 jumps from behind the arc with a kind of a two-handed shot towards the basket. B1 instinctively goes to block it, and gets a couple of fingers on it. Meanwhile, A2 is next to the basket, jumps up and mis-times the jump due to the tip. The ball ends up going through the basket.

Was it a try or not? With your rule change, you now have to make that decision because B1 deflected it. You now have to determine if A2 was going up to receive a pass, or to redirect the tipped ball into the basket if he was able.

Isn't that the purpose of the rule as written? We no longer have to make this type of decision. And this type of decision, though rare, happens much more often than the situation in the OP. So, to me it seems to be a fair trade-off. If you can find a better way to re-write the rule as intended without any loopholes, I'm all ears. (Or eyes, since we're talking over the internet.)

[Adam]

You would have had to make that determination if B1 fouled A1 anyway. Do we really need to dumb down the rules that much?

[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.

[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.