Pass that goes in.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

We've been round and round on this before and there is a difference of opinion.

Many (perhaps most) feel the "thrown ball" rule is written with the assumption that the ball is thrown toward the area of the basket....and that a deflection that redirects the ball to the basket is no longer a "thrown ball"....particularly a deflection on a ball that is not going above the rim or is on its way down. The purpose of this rule is NOT to turn a wild deflection into 3 points but to take the judgement out of the case where a ball, as released, may or may not have been a try but goes directly into the basket....and that a brush (not a redirection) by a defender doesn't change the status of the thrown ball.

Well said, Camron, thanks.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by mbyron

5-2-1:

"A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who
is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points. A ball
that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal
from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown."

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

We've been round and round on this before and there is a difference of opinion.

Many (perhaps most) feel the "thrown ball" rule is written with the assumption that the ball is thrown toward the area of the basket....and that a deflection that redirects the ball to the basket is no longer a "thrown ball"....particularly a deflection on a ball that is not going above the rim or is on its way down. The purpose of this rule is NOT to turn a wild deflection into 3 points but to take the judgement out of the case where a ball, as released, may or may not have been a try but goes directly into the basket....and that a brush (not a redirection) by a defender doesn't change the status of the thrown ball.

That is a lot to read in to rule 5-2-1.

I agree the rule was written to take the judgement out. Taking the position above is adding a lot of judgement back in.

IMO, 5-2-1 and 5.2.1C(b) in the case book gives us only one choice. Count it as 3.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

That is a lot to read in to rule 5-2-1.

I agree the rule was written to take the judgement out. Taking the position above is adding a lot of judgement back in.

IMO, 5-2-1 and 5.2.1C(b) in the case book gives us only one choice. Count it as 3.

If you go back to when it was changed and the reason it was changed, it is not so hard to come to that conclusion.

There is another case play (someone else can look it up) that has a thrown ball (try) that bounces off a defender's head and into the basket. The ball was thrown from behind the 3-point arc. The ruling in that case play is that it counts for 2 points. Why? At the point in time where the "try" is over (certain it will not be successful, below the rim, hits the floor, etc.) the thrown ball can no longer score for 3 points....any subsequent deflection is a NEW action. So, a thrown ball that can not possibly go in as released is not subject to being 3-points.

The judgement removed is in the intent of the thrower, not whether the "try" has ended or not. The former requires the reading of a mind. The latter only requires the observation of physical facts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you go back to when it was changed and the reason it was changed, it is not so hard to come to that conclusion.

There is another case play (someone else can look it up) that has a thrown ball (try) that bounces off a defender's head and into the basket. The ball was thrown from behind the 3-point arc. The ruling in that case play is that it counts for 2 points. Why? At the point in time where the "try" is over (certain it will not be successful, below the rim, hits the floor, etc.) the thrown ball can no longer score for 3 points....any subsequent deflection is a NEW action. So, a thrown ball that can not possibly go in as released is not subject to being 3-points.

The judgement removed is in the intent of the thrower, not whether the "try" has ended or not. The former requires the reading of a mind. The latter only requires the observation of physical facts.

Agree. The difference is that the thrown ball is deflected up by the defender. If it comes down through the basket, it's considered as a 3-point try. If the same deflected pass comes down short though, as soon as it falls below the rim it is no longer considered as being a try. Hence the confusion. The original question in the OP was referring to the start of the play. Snaqs was talking about a possible end of that play instead.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree. The difference is that the thrown ball is deflected up by the defender. If it comes down through the basket, it's considered as a 3-point try. If the same deflected pass comes down short though, as soon as it falls below the rim it is no longer considered as being a try. Hence the confusion. The original question in the OP was referring to the start of the play. Snaqs was talking about a possible end of that play instead.

The difference is that, prior to the deflection, the ball had NO chance of going in. The direction of the deflection doesn't matter. In fact, I'd bet that all deflections where this could even be considered would be deflections in the upward direction.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The difference is that, prior to the deflection, the ball had NO chance of going in. The direction of the deflection doesn't matter.

Agreed. A1 throws an alley oop pass from outside the arc. If untouched, the ball would have hit the board just above and two feet to the left of the rim. Before A2 can get to it, the ball, while on its downward flight, is deflected by B1 into the basket.

2 points

[Welpe]

I get what you guys are saying and it makes sense to me logically but it definitely doesn't jive with the rule (not the first time for sure). I'll look for that Case Play that Camron references. If one of you comes across it, please post it here.