Pass to Head to Hoop

[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 Snaqwells

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

I actually agree with you. But I guess there might've been too many instances where baskets were being waved off on questionable passes that were really shots, and the committee decided to take that decision away from the officials. In doing that though, they created the loophole of awarding 3 points in the event of the OP. The Rule of Unintended Consequences.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I actually agree with you.

I took out all the extra junk for you.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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. ...

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.

Or, many are failing to acknowledge that there is a simple, basic assumption that is implied that the writers of the rule felt was so obvious that it was not necessary to include it.

They gave us a new rule with an explanation of what it was for and the situation for which it was intended. They kept it short and concise expecting that officials were sufficiently intelligent to know how to apply it properly. Now we have a contingent that insists that the rule doesn't mean what they writers said it meant and are trying to apply it in a place it was never intended for.

I'm going to trust the writers of the rule and not try to impart some alternative meaning just because their word choice doesn't exhaustively cover all the weird convolutions that some can come up with.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

just because their word choice doesn't exhaustively cover all the weird convolutions that some can come up with.

Here's the whole problem, Camron. Their word choice DOES cover EXHAUSTIVELY all the weird convolutions because they chose the words, "ANY thrown ball". "Any". As in, all. As in, every single one, exhaustively.

Just change it to say what they really mean. That's all I'm suggesting.

[BillyMac]

2008-09 IAABO Refresher Exam
7. A-1, from behind the 3 point line, throws the ball toward his/her basket for a catch and dunk. The ball is on its downward flight outside the cylinder above the ring level and in the judgment of the official has a chance of entering the basket when A-2 catches the ball and dunks it. The official rules this is goaltending and disallows the basket. Is the official correct?
Answer 7. Yes Rule 5 Section 2 Art 1; Rule 4 Section 22, Rule 9 Section 12

I thought that one of the guidelines for goaltending was that it had to be a try. I got this one wrong, and I'm still upset about it. To me, throwing the ball toward the basket for a catch and dunk is a pass, not a try.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I thought that one of the guidelines for goaltending was that it had to be a try. I got this one wrong, and I'm still upset about it. To me, throwing the ball toward the basket for a catch and dunk is a pass, not a try.

Well, to be picky, it must be a try or tap. But, otherwise, you would be correct. Ask someone what the call would be if B1 fouled A1 - would they consider it a shooting foul? If so, than A2's catch would be goaltending. If they rule B1's foul is a common foul, because A1 was passing or throwing the ball, than A2 cannot be goaltending. (Btw, the basket would not count anyway because the foul would cause the ball to become dead immediately, since it was not a shot.)

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Here's the whole problem, Camron. Their word choice DOES cover EXHAUSTIVELY all the weird convolutions because they chose the words, "ANY thrown ball". "Any". As in, all. As in, every single one, exhaustively.

Just change it to say what they really mean. That's all I'm suggesting.

Yea, what he said.