Pass to Head to Hoop
 

You know things are going your way when you make a pass that hits a defender in the forehead and drops in...

YouTube - Tri Unity vs Potters House Off the head shot

Did I see the official signaled only 2 points?

He was well beyond the arc - should've been 3.

two
 

I didn't take the time this weekend to look it up - believe they ruled because it was touched inside the arc it was a two.

You see the assistant coach wanted a three..

Touched by who? If it was touched by the offense (teammate), then yes, they would be correct. If it was touched by the defense, then no. It looked like the ball bounced off the white player.

By rule, this should be a 3. Any thrown ball that starts outside the arc and then goes in a player's own basket without touching the floor, a teammate or an official counts as 3. I think it's 5-2-1.

Having said that, there's NO WAY that this type of play should be awarded 3 points. It was obviously not a try for goal, it was just a lucky bounce.

There is a case play (I can't remember the reference) in which a 3-point try falls short of the goal, bounces off a defender and then goes in the basket. It is ruled as a 2-point basket because the try clearly ended. This, IMHO, clearly contradicts the rule but is the correct ruling.

5-2-1 needs to be re-written so that if it applies only to the "alley-oops" play (where it MIGHT have been a try) and not to "any" thrown ball (which is obviously NOT a try).

NCAA rules - 2 points?
 

Using NCAA rules, I would count this as two points. My rationale is that this is not a successful try from beyond the three-point line by the blue player, but rather the white player's directing the ball (with his head) into blue's basket.

Rule 5-1:
Art. 1. A goal from the field other than from beyond the three-point line
shall count two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown,
tapped or directed.
Art. 2. A successful try from beyond the three-point line shall count three
points for the team when the ball is thrown or directed into its basket.
a. When a player scores a field goal in the opponent’s basket, it shall
count two points for the opponent regardless of the location on the
playing court from where it was released. Such a field goal shall not
be credited to a player in the scorebook but shall be indicated with a footnote.

That's the one.

I don't think it really contradicts it, because the case play clearly states it's a <B>try</B>, and once a try ends the bounce off the player becomes a second action, so to speak.

5.2.1 Sit. C (b) covers the OP's exact play.

It may no longer be a try, but it is still a "thrown ball" that has not touched the floor, an opponent, or an official.

Aren't they still two different things? For example, is it the same result if B1 fouls A1 during a throw or during a try? Isn't that why they specifically mention all three: try, tap, or thrown ball? We still need to make a judgement of whether it is one of the three, however it doesn't matter which one goes through the basket to count 3 points.

No, it is a 2. We've been through this before and while the rule seems to indicated it shoud be a three, other case plays give us the intent of the rule. The intent is not to make ball that was not going towards the basket into a three points when a defender bats/heads in to the basket. That rule is very clearly intended only to apply to balls thrown in such a way that they may enter the basket as thrown....that defensive "touching" doesn't alter the chance to score a three. Sure it doesn't spell it out in so many words but the writers of the rule expect the officials reading it to have some amount of common sense.

Then why 5.2.1C?

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it
hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through
the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and
below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are
scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)


I agree.

Here's common sense: read the rule and follow what it says. That seems like common sense to me. The rule says it's 3 points. The case says it's 2 points. They clearly are contradictory.

5-2-1 needs to be re-written to reflect what they really want the rule to be: if it MIGHT be a try, it's 3 points. If it's obvious that it's NOT a try, then it's still 2 points.

Ever wonder why the man who invests all your money is called a broker?
 

Rookie officials take note: I believe that goaltending could not be called on this play, it's not a try, however basket interference could be called, because basket interference does not have to involve a try.

So if BI occurs, Billy, how many points are you going to award? :D

The rule is ambiguous....it leaves terms undefined. The case is specific. The goal counts as 2 if it goes in after touching the floor, a teammate inside the arc, or even a defender when such touching occurs after the orignal thow can no longer be successful as originally thrown (see 4.41.4B).

5.2.1C is talking about the very common and typical case of a defender (basically on or near the 3 point line) attempting to block a typical shot that subsequently goes in. The fact that the defender touches the ball doesn't change the status of the attempt/throw. The throw is what it is is when the thrower releases it until a teammate inside the arc touches it or it no longer has a chance to go in with out assistance/redirection.

Taking this one rule literally and in a vacuum, as you want us to do, the defensive team could actually bat the ball around ala volleyball for 5 minutes then tap it into the basket to score 3 for A. In fact, since the thrown ball continues to be eligible to be 3 points until the ball touches the floor or a teammate (as you define it), the defensive team could actually catch the thrown ball (from outside the 3-point arc) ...remembering that you claim that the thrown ball and the chance to score 3 ONLY end when it touches the floor or a teammate....and "shoot" it into A's basket to score 3 for A. Do you really want to continue to suggest that this is the intended meaning?

I Think It's In One Of Those Old Interpretations ???
 

NFHS Rule 11-2-3-d: Five points are awarded for basket interference by a defensive player, at the opponents basket, if the ball bounces off the head of a defensive player, who is inside the three point arc, before entering the cylinder, or touching the ring. It's seven points if it happens a second time in the same game, no matter which team commits the basket interference under these conditions.

<font color=red>Which terms are undefined? "Try" and "tap" are specifically defined, so that only leaves a "thrown ball" as the only possible undefined term. I would think it's meaning is still obvious.</font color>
<font color=green>You have just completely re-written 4-41. Nowhere in 4-41 does it include the term "throw". A try and a throw are two completely different terms.</font color>


We agree. It would also apply to the alley-oop pass that originates outside the arc and deflects off the defender's hand into the basket.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your thought process, you are adding in something that is not backed by rule. You are interchanging the definition of a "try" with "throw", and we both know they aren't the same. A player who is fouled during a "try" and during a "throw" are not treated equally.

Huh?? :confused: When did I ever say that a change of possession (due to the catch) still has "throw" continuing? Now you're starting to channel Nevada's other-world plays... :D

I have said all along this does not change our judgement as to a try vs. pass/throw. If A1 is fouled during a throw, rather than a shot, and the ball goes in, it will be a common foul, not a shooting foul, and the basket does not count. Don't confuse this rule as saying a throw is treated the same as a shot. 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.

No. 4-41 gives us a clear view of the intent of the rules....that when the chance to score 3 is clearly unsucessful, it can no longer be a 3. Sure it doesn't spell it out in so many words but it is not like it is difficult language to understand.

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.

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.

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.

I guess I'm not following - what "absurd rulings" have I come up with?

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 <B>almost every deflection that goes in</B> had no chance to go in prior to the deflection, right?

You just made my entire point, Camron. Thanks!! :)

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.

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

You just made my entire point, Scrappy. Thanks!! :)

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.)

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.

I took out all the extra junk for you. :)

Not any that you've come up with but the ones that are implied as result from interpreting the rule as you do.

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.

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.

No, I did exactly the opposite. I can not imagine why you find it so difficult understand the basic purpose of the rule.

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.

Email it to your interpreter & maybe it will find its way to the rules committee.

I agree. Well, other than your addition of the word "reasonably". I didn't see that word in either the rule or case play. :)

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?"

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.

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.

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.

With all due respect, you proved my point exactly.

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.

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.

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.

IAABO Refresher Exam Question ???
 

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.

Yea, what he said. :)

Well, to be picky, it must be a try <B>or tap</B>. 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.)

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.

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!

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

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?

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".

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.

How about this one:

SECTION 20 FREE THROW
<DD><DD></DD>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. </DD>

or this one:

SECTION 40 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP
<DD><DD></DD>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. </DD>

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.

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?

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.

It can be.
Yes. Just because A1 wanted the pass to go to A2 doesn't mean anything. When it is touched/batted by B2, doesn't that also satisfy the definition of a pass? What if it never makes it to A2 but B3 picks it up? When did it end? A1's pass ends when it touches any other player.

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, <B>as written</B>, 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.

note to observers
 

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.

:D

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...

:D

You don't have to say it twice.:cool:

Like I said....


;)

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.

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.

agreed....

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.

In the original video, insert a foul committed against the "thrower" and you (correctly) are going to kill the play because you judged A was passing the ball.

The pass has no chance of entering the basket no matter if he was fouled or not, therefore 2 points are correctly awarded, not the 3 that you propose.

I don't propose it, it's the rule. 5-2-1: "A successful try, tap, <B>or thrown ball</B> from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot 9-inch arc counts three points." The case play, 5.2.1 Sit C has A1 <B>throwing</B> the ball (not necessarily a try), contacting the defender inside the arc, and 3 points are still awarded.

Of course, Camron and I have been discussing what the intent of the committee was when this rule was changed. You might want to go back and read this thread all the way through, so I don't have to go through it all again. :)

A disillusioned cynic might say you were being lazy.

There you go again. I'd report you to the mods if they gave a crap.

(Actually, being lazy is using cut-and-paste techniques instead of thinking of original responses. :D )

Then by your interpretation, if A1 is fouled while he is throwing the ball to A2 and it deflects off B3 into the basket, you must count the basket.

You cannot have it both ways.

No, the ball becomes dead on a foul unless there is a try involved. No basket.

What if I judge the "thrown ball" to be a try (in the OP)....a really bad one, but a try. Doesn't that, per <strike>4.2.1c</strike> 4.41.4B make it only a 2 if it goes in? :D

Nope, that is not my interpretation, and that is not the rule. I've said that from the beginning (actually, post #9 in this thread).

The rule does not magically change a thrown ball into a try. All it says is either a throw, tap, or try that originates from outside the arc counts 3 points, even if it is touched by the defense. If we judge it to be a try, than all of the rules governing a try still appliy - the basket counts if A1 is fouled, or if the horn sounds ending a period while the try is still in the air. If we judge it to be a pass, then the ball is dead immediately upon a foul, the horn sounds, etc. None of those other rules change.

Do you mean 5.2.1(c)?

If so, it bounced off the defender in the OP, so it would be a 3. If it had bounced off a teammate, then, yes, it would be a 2.

No, I typed the wrong reference:

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)

According to this case, it would be 2 if the official judges it to be a try and it bounced off the shoulder of the defender as in the OP.

I got 'ya. If we judge it to be a try, I would agree with that ruling as well.

But you would have to do some convincing to prove to me the ball wasn't still on it's way up... ;) :D