Pass to Head to 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.

[M&M Guy]

Camron - I agree with your reasoning that the result of a try that falls below the rim is treated differently than a throw/pass that falls below the rim. I've never argued that point. All I'm saying is the rule and case play, as written, do treat them differently whether we agree with the logic or not.

So, until I see something in writing from the Fed about it, I have to make the call as written, not what I think is "fair".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron - I agree with your reasoning that the result of a try that falls below the rim is treated differently than a throw/pass that falls below the rim. I've never argued that point. All I'm saying is the rule and case play, as written, do treat them differently whether we agree with the logic or not.

So, until I see something in writing from the Fed about it, I have to make the call as written, not what I think is "fair".

Except that the rule is/was advertised as changing the rules so that we would treat them the same. So, that implies that anyone reading them to be different is misreading one of them.