Pass to Head to Hoop

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

And this is where I disagree...the rule and case playS (all of them taken together to get context) tell us it is a two....period.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And this is where I disagree...the rule and case playS (all of them taken together to get context) tell us it is a two....period.

Geeze, I hope when we're officiating together, we won't be having this long discussion at center court while the teams are waiting for the final decision...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Geeze, I hope when we're officiating together, we won't be having this long discussion at center court while the teams are waiting for the final decision...

Like I said....

[asdf]

How about this scenario.... (my apologies if already discussed)

A1 dribbling outside the 3-point line sees A2 wide open under the basket.

A1 tries to pass the ball to A2 directly off the dribble (we've all seen this type of pass) and is fouled by B1. B1's contact with A1 causes the ball to strike B3 who is standing outside the lane, but inside the three point line. the ball, after striking B3 enters the basket.

You are telling me you are going to award 3 points and a foul shot for a good bucket?

or....

A1 driving to the basket and elevates as if he is going to shoot, however he passes towards A2 who is left alone because B2 comes over to help on A1. B2 fouls A1 as he passes to A2.

Are you going to wait to declare "no shot" or "on the pass" until you see if the ball is deflected into or towards the basket?

If it is deflected towards but not into the basket are you awarding two shots?

The wording may be cloudy, but the call is crystal clear.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by asdf

A1 tries to pass the ball to A2...

Not a "shot" because it's a pass. Judging whether a throw is a try turns on the official's assessment of the player's intent in throwing.

Also what umpire call a 'third world play' (with apologies to the third world) and usually ignore.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

How about this scenario.... (my apologies if already discussed)

A1 dribbling outside the 3-point line sees A2 wide open under the basket.

A1 tries to pass the ball to A2 directly off the dribble (we've all seen this type of pass) and is fouled by B1. B1's contact with A1 causes the ball to strike B3 who is standing outside the lane, but inside the three point line. the ball, after striking B3 enters the basket.

You are telling me you are going to award 3 points and a foul shot for a good bucket?

or....

A1 driving to the basket and elevates as if he is going to shoot, however he passes towards A2 who is left alone because B2 comes over to help on A1. B2 fouls A1 as he passes to A2.

Are you going to wait to declare "no shot" or "on the pass" until you see if the ball is deflected into or towards the basket?

If it is deflected towards but not into the basket are you awarding two shots?

The wording may be cloudy, but the call is crystal clear.

In both of your plays, as mbyron already mentioned, we still have to judge whether it's a try or pass/throw. So, in both instances, because it was a pass and not a try, the ball becomes dead on the foul, and no points are scored when the ball goes through the basket after the foul.

The rule and case play are only taking away our judgement as to whether it's a pass or try when a thrown ball originating outside the arc goes through the basket - it will still count 3 points. We still need to make that judgement, however, in the event of a foul, or if time expires before the ball goes through the basket.

[26 Year Gap]

This thread is a great example of discussion of a play with differing viewpoints. No namecalling is occurring. Case plays and rules notations are cited. Not everyone is in agreement. But, that doesn't make anyone wrong or inferior or anything else. It is civil dialogue and that is often missing on discussion boards of any type.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

This thread is a great example of discussion of a play with differing viewpoints. No namecalling is occurring. Case plays and rules notations are cited. Not everyone is in agreement. But, that doesn't make anyone wrong or inferior or anything else. It is civil dialogue and that is often missing on discussion boards of any type.

Shut up.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Shut up.

You don't have to say it twice.