Double Dribble

[Viking32]

JR - I thought Nevada was pretty clear and precise about quoting the rule book and interpreting it to his situation. The rules committee, in my opinion, took out most of the ambiguity and doubt with this.

If they release the ball (try or not) from behind the arc and it hits a defender (whether attempting to block the shot or not) it's worth 3 points. End of story. It takes the official's opinion on whether or not he was attempting a shot out of the equation, and makes it easier to interpret the rule.

Go back and read the rule book, then take a look at his situation. This one seems cut and dried.

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Ya had left-handed balls,though!

Right-handed balls... all the time. Right-handed ....
I could take 'em, and pass 'em. Couldn't dribble 'em or shoot 'em.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Viking32
JR - I thought Nevada was pretty clear and precise about quoting the rule book and interpreting it to his situation. The rules committee, in my opinion, took out most of the ambiguity and doubt with this.

If they release the ball (try or not) from behind the arc and it hits a defender (whether attempting to block the shot or not) it's worth 3 points. End of story. It takes the official's opinion on whether or not he was attempting a shot out of the equation, and makes it easier to interpret the rule.

Go back and read the rule book, then take a look at his situation. This one seems cut and dried.

End of story?Go back and read the rule book?

I have been quoting the rulebook. I think that you should go back and re-read this thread.Then look up in the rulebook:
1)when a shot legally ends(R4-40-4)
2)the definition for goaltending,specifically 4-22-1a,b&c.
3)read casebook play 4.4.40.SitB-"the three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring".
4)then go through the rulebook and find out the difference between "legal" and "illegal touching" on a shot.

When you've done that,please let me know if you still think that the basket should still be a "three".

You're trying to apply a rule for one specific situation to a completely different situation.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 16th, 2003 at 09:40 AM]

[Viking32]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

End of story?Go back and read the rule book?

I have been quoting the rulebook. I think that you should go back and re-read this thread.Then look up in the rulebook:
1)when a shot legally ends(R4-40-4)
2)the definition for goaltending,specifically 4-22-1a,b&c.
3)read casebook play 4.4.40.SitB-"the three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring".
4)then go through the rulebook and find out the difference between "legal" and "illegal touching" on a shot.

When you've done that,please let me know if you still think that the basket should still be a "three".

You're trying to apply a rule for one specific situation to a completely different situation.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 16th, 2003 at 09:40 AM]

OK. We need to take a step back here.

The original post has nothing to do with a shot. Quoting the rule book on a shot is irrelevant. As was said previously, the rule was changed last year. If A1 is outside the arc and throws a pass off of B1's head and the ball goes through the hoop, it is worth 3 points now.

Please, read the part of the rule book that Nevada referenced and disregard whether or not a shot was attempted. It doesn't matter anymore.

1)when a shot legally ends(R4-40-4) - No shot was attempted

2)the definition for goaltending,specifically 4-22-1a,b&c. - no shot attempted, no goaltending rule needed.

3)read casebook play 4.4.40.SitB-"the three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring". - Again, no shot attempted.

4)then go through the rulebook and find out the difference between "legal" and "illegal touching" on a shot. - Once more, no shot was attempted.

I apologize for putting "go back and read the rule book." It should have been "go back and read the right part of the rule book." There was no shot attempted in his example, please do not quote that part of the rule book when trying to interpret the correct rule for this situation.

To answer your final question. When someone is standing behind the arc, throws the ball and it goes off of a defender into the hoop, it is worth 3 points.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by Viking32

OK. We need to take a step back here.

The original post has nothing to do with a shot. Quoting the rule book on a shot is irrelevant. As was said previously, the rule was changed last year. If A1 is outside the arc and throws a pass off of B1's head and the ball goes through the hoop, it is worth 3 points now.

Please, read the part of the rule book that Nevada referenced and disregard whether or not a shot was attempted. It doesn't matter anymore.

1)when a shot legally ends(R4-40-4) - No shot was attempted

2)the definition for goaltending,specifically 4-22-1a,b&c. - no shot attempted, no goaltending rule needed.

3)read casebook play 4.4.40.SitB-"the three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring". - Again, no shot attempted.

4)then go through the rulebook and find out the difference between "legal" and "illegal touching" on a shot. - Once more, no shot was attempted.

I apologize for putting "go back and read the rule book." It should have been "go back and read the right part of the rule book." There was no shot attempted in his example, please do not quote that part of the rule book when trying to interpret the correct rule for this situation.

To answer your final question. When someone is standing behind the arc, throws the ball and it goes off of a defender into the hoop, it is worth 3 points.

2002-2003 Casebook (FED) sitch 5.2.1C This nails this shut. Ball THROWN (not a try) by A from behind 3 point arc that legally touches b player (regardless of his/her position inside or outside 3pt arc) and enters basket count 3 points.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

To prove my point consider the play in which A1 is behind the 3 pt. line and throws the ball into the lane where it hits B1 in the head and then goes into the basket without ever touching the floor. The correct ruling is that this counts for three points. If your interpretation of 4-4-4 were correct, this would only be two points since the ball would have "hit" the floor when it bounced off B1's head.
[/B][/QUOTE]Guys,there is the exact post that we are arguing about. Are both of you telling me that this particular shot didn't end when it hit B1's head while he was standing in the key-i.e.the ball still had a chance to go in and it was above the level of the rim?

The casebook play that you guys are talking about is referring to a defensive player LEGALLY hitting the shot while it is still going up,NOT touching the shot after the try ended because it was below rim level and didn't have a chance to go in.If the defensive player touched it on the way DOWN while it was ABOVE the rim,ya gotta call "goaltending"!Completely different situations with a different rule covering each situation!

[Hawks Coach]

I went back and re-read this case and still come away with the same impression. I believe that the case 5.2.1 is intended to refer to a defensive deflection of the ball on the way up, while it is still a try on goal. It is to make clear that if a player on B deflects a shot when he is physically located inside the 3 pt arc, the shot is still a 3 pt shot.

I do not believe this case is intended to cover a legal touch by B after the ball has no chance of going in, because you no longer have a try on goal. To put it in other terms related to other rules on shots: there is a try on goal, the ball has passed its peak and is heading downward, comes below the rim and has no chance to go in, and therefore you cannot goal tend by rule. Because the ball has reached a point where it has no chance to go in, the try has ended.

Fire away!!!

Actually, this would be a good case to obtain clarification from NF.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Actually, this would be a good case to obtain clarification from NF.

We already have a clarification,Coach. It's casebook play 4.40.4Sit.B. Just replace "shoulder" with "head" in (b) and it's EXACTLY the same as the sitch Nevada's trying to use.

[Hawks Coach]

My 4.40 stops at .2??

[Viking32]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

To prove my point consider the play in which A1 is behind the 3 pt. line and throws the ball into the lane where it hits B1 in the head and then goes into the basket without ever touching the floor. The correct ruling is that this counts for three points. If your interpretation of 4-4-4 were correct, this would only be two points since the ball would have "hit" the floor when it bounced off B1's head.
[/B]

Guys,there is the exact post that we are arguing about. Are both of you telling me that this particular shot didn't end when it hit B1's head while he was standing in the key-i.e.the ball still had a chance to go in and it was above the level of the rim?

The casebook play that you guys are talking about is referring to a defensive player LEGALLY hitting the shot while it is still going up,NOT touching the shot after the try ended because it was below rim level and didn't have a chance to go in.If the defensive player touched it on the way DOWN while it was ABOVE the rim,ya gotta call "goaltending"!Completely different situations with a different rule covering each situation! [/B][/QUOTE]


To prove my point, show me where it says SHOT in the original post. Why do you think this was a shot?

[dhodges007]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

To prove my point consider the play in which A1 is behind the 3 pt. line and throws the ball into the lane where it hits B1 in the head and then goes into the basket without ever touching the floor. The correct ruling is that this counts for three points. If your interpretation of 4-4-4 were correct, this would only be two points since the ball would have "hit" the floor when it bounced off B1's head.
[/B]

Guys,there is the exact post that we are arguing about. Are both of you telling me that this particular shot didn't end when it hit B1's head while he was standing in the key-i.e.the ball still had a chance to go in and it was above the level of the rim?

The casebook play that you guys are talking about is referring to a defensive player LEGALLY hitting the shot while it is still going up,NOT touching the shot after the try ended because it was below rim level and didn't have a chance to go in.If the defensive player touched it on the way DOWN while it was ABOVE the rim,ya gotta call "goaltending"!Completely different situations with a different rule covering each situation! [/B][/QUOTE]

I do remember that rule change last year that a pass from A1 to A2 which was deflected (doesn't specify what body part) and goes into the basket is a 3 pointer if A1 was outside of the 3 point arc.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Viking32

Guys,there is the exact post that we are arguing about. Are both of you telling me that this particular shot didn't end when it hit B1's head while he was standing in the key-i.e.the ball still had a chance to go in and it was above the level of the rim?

The casebook play that you guys are talking about is referring to a defensive player LEGALLY hitting the shot while it is still going up,NOT touching the shot after the try ended because it was below rim level and didn't have a chance to go in.If the defensive player touched it on the way DOWN while it was ABOVE the rim,ya gotta call "goaltending"!Completely different situations with a different rule covering each situation! [/B]

To prove my point, show me where it says SHOT in the original post. Why do you think this was a shot? [/B][/QUOTE]Sigh! Probably because you gentlemen keep insisting that 3 points should be awarded,as per the play that you keep quoting!

[Viking32]

I think our point was that a new rule came in that says it doesn't have to be a try in order to be worth 3 points. I thought Nevada did a great job of explaining it by showing the 4 criteria that need to be met in order to be worth 3 points. His play passed all 4. I would award 3 points in his situation.

[mick]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
My 4.40 stops at .2??

We're required to use the 2002-03 book.

[mick]

JR,
FWIW, I agree with you.
mick