Pass to Head to Hoop

[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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

Except that you're still assuming a definition for "thrown ball". When does it cease to be a "thrown ball"? My claim all along is that it is no longer a thrown ball when B bats the ball into in a new direction such that it goes into the goal. That is a new and independant act that changes everything.

By your interp, the "thrown ball" doesn't end at all, and that assumption creates a contradiction and goes against the explanation of the purpose of the rule. By my interp, the ball ceases to be thrown and such an interpretaion reconciles the possible contradictions and aligns with the expressed purpose of the rule.

[26 Year Gap]

Here is my interpreter's take on it...

In my opinion, it is clearly a 2-point goal. That said, there is room for interpretation. Rule 4-41-2 defines a "try" as an attempt at a player's own basket and goes on to state a player is "trying for goal" when "in the official's judgment the player is throwing or attempting to throw for goal." It is MY judgment, based on watching the video, that the player WAS NOT throwing for goal, but was rather making a pass since the ball was thrown "horizontally" to the floor and would never have gotten above the level of the ring, if not for hitting the player's head. Because of that, I would rule it a 2-point goal. Where the "interpretation" can come in would be the argument that 5-2-1 simply says that a "try" OR "thrown ball" from behind the arc counts for 3-points unless it hits a "team mate" inside the arc. The ball was clearly "thrown" from outside and it hit an opponent. I base MY interpretation on the wording of 4-41-2 and the player's "intent." When all else fails, go with 2-3!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Here is my interpreter's take on it...

In my opinion, it is clearly a 2-point goal. That said, there is room for interpretation. Rule 4-41-2 defines a "try" as an attempt at a player's own basket and goes on to state a player is "trying for goal" when "in the official's judgment the player is throwing or attempting to throw for goal." It is MY judgment, based on watching the video, that the player WAS NOT throwing for goal, but was rather making a pass since the ball was thrown "horizontally" to the floor and would never have gotten above the level of the ring, if not for hitting the player's head. Because of that, I would rule it a 2-point goal. Where the "interpretation" can come in would be the argument that 5-2-1 simply says that a "try" OR "thrown ball" from behind the arc counts for 3-points unless it hits a "team mate" inside the arc. The ball was clearly "thrown" from outside and it hit an opponent. I base MY interpretation on the wording of 4-41-2 and the player's "intent." When all else fails, go with 2-3!

While I like your interpreter's thought process, unfortunately it goes against the reason for the rule and case play - we are not supposed to judge intent on this. Ask him/her how you would judge a possible alley-oop pass that goes in?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While I like your interpreter's thought process, unfortunately it goes against the reason for the rule and case play - we are not supposed to judge intent on this. Ask him/her how you would judge a possible alley-oop pass that goes in?

The same could be said on a hard foul on a layup off a fast break. Was there an intent on the fouler's part to foul or to make a defensive play? I think the case can be made for either 2 or 3 points on that particular play. An alley oop pass, could have a chance to go in. A line drive pass, which I think is a point that most can agree upon in this case, is very different. And, I think that is the viewpoint of my interpreter. Not saying he is absolutely correct, but he did sit on the Fed rules committee for 4 years, so he knows firsthand about the discussions that take place at that level.

One thing is certain, his teammates in the next practice probably asked if they could try out that play.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While I like your interpreter's thought process, unfortunately it goes against the reason for the rule and case play - we are not supposed to judge intent on this.

Precisely!!! When there is an interpretation that requires a judgment of whether it is a try or not, such interpretation must be wrong. And your interpretation retains the need to judge whether it is a try or not.

When 4.41c and 5.2.1 are taken together, there is only one possible explanation that reconciles all of the cases, the rule, and the stated purpose of the rule.....the "thrown ball" ends (and the chance for it to be 3 end) at any time when it can be determined that the throw will not be successful. Subsequent actions which direct the ball to the basket are not part of the original "thrown ball". This is consistent with all other rules/cases regarding opportunities/attempts to score.

[M&M Guy]

Cameron - once again, I agree with your thought process, I agree it doesn't go with other rulings, etc. I agree we still need to judge intent on this very play if, perhaps, A1 gets fouled while passing/throwing/trying, even though we should ignore the intent when the ball goes through the basket. You given good arguments as to why we still should make the judgement as to whether it is a throw or a try. All I've said in this whole process is the rule and case play, as written, tells us it's a 3. Period. Whether I agree with the logic or not.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

it is no longer a thrown ball when B bats the ball into in a new direction such that it goes into the goal.

That's like saying a 3-point try that it touched outside the arc is no longer a try.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Except that you're still assuming a definition for "thrown ball". When does it cease to be a "thrown ball"? My claim all along is that it is no longer a thrown ball when B bats the ball into in a new direction such that it goes into the goal. That is a new and independant act that changes everything.

While I understand your interpretation, can you duplicate that logic elsewhere in the rules? For example, we know that a deflected shot continues to be a shot after the deflection. What about team control? A deflection isn't "an independent act that changes everything"; there continues to be team control after the deflection. How about a pass? If A1 passes the ball to A2, does the pass "end" if B1 deflects it, even though A2 ended up with the ball? Btw, there is a definition of "Pass" (4-31), and it also includes that pesky word, "throws".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While I understand your interpretation, can you duplicate that logic elsewhere in the rules? For example, we know that a deflected shot continues to be a shot after the deflection. What about team control? A deflection isn't "an independent act that changes everything"; there continues to be team control after the deflection. How about a pass? If A1 passes the ball to A2, does the pass "end" if B1 deflects it, even though A2 ended up with the ball? Btw, there is a definition of "Pass" (4-31), and it also includes that pesky word, "throws".

How about this one:

SECTION 20 FREE THROW

ART. 3 . . . The free throw ends when the try is successful, when it is certain the try will not be successful, when the ball touches the floor or any player, or when the ball becomes dead.

or this one:

SECTION 40 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP

ART. 4 . . . The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful or when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead.

The deflected shot only continues to be a shot until it is certain that it will not be successful. It doesn't not require that it touch the floor, a teammate or be controlled by an opponent.

[M&M Guy]

Exactly. But not on the deflection, correct? The deflection alone is not the "new and independent act that changes everything". That was the point I was addressing.

But you continue to compare the throw with a try, where the word throw is also used in the definition of "pass". Can you use the same criteria to determine when a pass ends?