Unusual 3 second call

[billyu2]

In last night's tournament game I was the C, A1 had the ball on the opposite side of the court and A3 was in the lane by the block nearest me. I was ready to call a violation but A1 had already started a drive to the basket and was on his way up for the lay-in. Seeing he was about to be rejected, A1pulled the ball down and while still airborne tried to make an off-balance pass toward the corner on my side. The ball glanced off the bottom of the backboard, hit the floor and was caught by A3 who would have had an easy put-back but I quickly called A3 for a 3 second violation. My thinking was team control never ended and by this time, A3 had been in the lane for a lot more than :03. Later, I got to thinking of the recent discussion of throwing the ball off a team's own backboard and if team control ended. If so, then perhaps I was wrong. Would appreciate your opinions.

[Raymond]

If you deemed that A1's action was not a shot attempt you the right call.

[walter]

Badnews beat me to it. If you deem A1's action to be a try, you have nothing. If not, right call on the 3 secs.

[BillyMac]

Some would argue that throwing the ball and hitting the backboard of the team in possession is always considered a try for goal.

9.5 SITUATION A: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the
ball against: (a) his/her own backboard; (b) the opponent’s backboard; or (c) an
official and catches the ball after each. RULING: Legal in (a); a team’s own backboard
is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used. In (b) and
(c), A1 has violated; throwing the ball against an opponent’s backboard or an official
constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is first to touch the ball after it
strikes the official or the board. (4-4-5; 4-15-1, 2; Fundamental 19)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

In last night's tournament game I was the C, A1 had the ball on the opposite side of the court and A3 was in the lane by the block nearest me. I was ready to call a violation but A1 had already started a drive to the basket and was on his way up for the lay-in.

Sounds to me like you could have called the violation before the pass. If A3 is in to long, A1's drive to the basket is irrelevant.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Some would argue that throwing the ball and hitting the backboard of the team in possession is always considered a try for goal.

9.5 SITUATION A: A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the
ball against: (a) his/her own backboard; (b) the opponent’s backboard; or (c) an
official and catches the ball after each. RULING: Legal in (a); a team’s own backboard
is considered part of that team’s “equipment” and may be used. In (b) and
(c), A1 has violated; throwing the ball against an opponent’s backboard or an official
constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is first to touch the ball after it
strikes the official or the board. (4-4-5; 4-15-1, 2; Fundamental 19)

Right. And that is what I was thinking about later. However, all three of us agreed while discussing this after the game that this player was not making an attempt to score. In fact, should he have been fouled while trying to get rid of the ball, we would not have awarded him free throws for being in the act of shooting. He was definitely trying to throw the ball toward the corner. The ball just happened to hit the bottom of the backboard, which brings us back to 9.5 and whether team control ended.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Sounds to me like you could have called the violation before the pass. If A3 is in to long, A1's drive to the basket is irrelevant.

HTBT. A1 was far enough in toward the basket that my whistle would likely have coincided with him being airborne or just having released the ball on a try. Didn't want to go there.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Right. And that is what I was thinking about later. However, all three of us agreed while discussing this after the game that this player was not making an attempt to score. In fact, should he have been fouled while trying to get rid of the ball, we would not have awarded him free throws for being in the act of shooting. He was definitely trying to throw the ball toward the corner. The ball just happened to hit the bottom of the backboard, which brings us back to 9.5 and whether team control ended.

If the ball had gone in the basket instead of hitting the board, would you have allowed the basket? (remember, you said he wasn't trying to score)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by asdf

If the ball had gone in the basket instead of hitting the board, would you have allowed the basket? (remember, you said he wasn't trying to score)

And what rule would you have used to disallow the basket?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by asdf

If the ball had gone in the basket instead of hitting the board, would you have allowed the basket? (remember, you said he wasn't trying to score)

Since when do we disallow points when a live ball (excluding throw-in) goes into the basket just because it wasn't a shot attempt?


If A1 jumps and throws a pass and a defender tips it causing it to contact the basket and A1 was fouled before returning to the ground would you call A1 an airborne shooter and award him 2 shots?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Since when do we disallow points when a live ball (excluding throw-in) goes into the basket just because it wasn't a shot attempt?


If A1 jumps and throws a pass and a defender tips it causing it to contact the basket and A1 was fouled before returning to the ground would you call A1 an airborne shooter and award him 2 shots?

Where did I say the basket should be disallowed?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by asdf

Where did I say the basket should be disallowed?

Based on your question to the OP.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by asdf

Where did I say the basket should be disallowed?

You didn't say it should, but you questioned whether the OP would as if there was a logical reason for disallowing it.

Originally Posted by asdf

If the ball had gone in the basket instead of hitting the board, would you have allowed the basket? (remember, you said he wasn't trying to score)

So, I ask again, what rule (or logic) could he have used to disallow the basket?

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by asdf

If the ball had gone in the basket instead of hitting the board, would you have allowed the basket? (remember, you said he wasn't trying to score)

Not knowing if asdf has gone to bed for the day, or whatever, I'll hazard a guess that this was just a rhetorical question, or at least one to provoke introspection from the OPer. He never says anything should/would be disallowed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Not knowing if asdf has gone to bed for the day, or whatever, I'll hazard a guess that this was just a rhetorical question, or at least one to provoke introspection from the OPer. He never says anything should/would be disallowed.

Which leads me to think one of three things was at play:

1. He sees a logical path from ruling it to be a non-try to disallowing the basket, even if he agrees the rule is clear that it should be allowed; and he had a point to make. If so, I'm wondering what it was.

2. He thinks the OP really would have disallowed the basket.

3. He was just being random.

I'm going with #1.