Pass to Head to Hoop

[TiManGR]

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

[M&M Guy]

Did I see the official signaled only 2 points?

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

[TiManGR]

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..

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by TiManGR

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.

[Scrapper1]

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).

[Lotto]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

That's the one.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

I don't think it really contradicts it, because the case play clearly states it's a try, 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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

once a try ends the bounce off the player becomes a second action, so to speak.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Did I see the official signaled only 2 points?

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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).

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)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I agree.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

the writers of the rule expect the officials reading it to have some amount of common sense.

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?