I think the point that is being missed is the INTENT of the rule change. In the past, the official had to decide if a ball that was thrown towards the basket was a shot or not. Now we don't. If it goes in it's a 3. The point of this rule change is to take the judegment of try/not-a-try out of the picture. We are essentially to assume it is a try. If the ball is headed toward the basket, even if it is touched by a defender (attempted blocked "shot"), it is to be a 3. Now, if the ball is NOT headed toward the basket and a defender deflects it there, it is not meant to be a 3. The origianally thrown ball was not toward the basket and didn't have a chance of going in. This rule doesn't apply. While the wording may seem to suggest that it does, when the ball falls below the rim and is deflected it is simply a loose ball that goes in (for 2 points).

Consider an entry pass from the perimeter to the post where the defender gets a hand into the mix and deflects the ball up into the basket. This is and always has been a 2.

Consider an actual 3-point try that hits the rim and bounces out. While attempting to get the rebound, the defender accidently hits the ball back in. This is and always has been a 2. By some of the interpretations here, it should be a 3.

Again I will go to 2002-2003 Casebook (FED) sitch 5.2.1C.

This case has an asterick by it as it is a new caseplay this year. Earlier posts have said that this took the judgement from the official on wether this is a shot or not. Like it or not that is true. We covered this extensively at our state meetings. Unfortunatly (I don't like the ruleing either) this case IS a three point award. NFHS is very careful about using the word(s) tip, try, pass, and throw in their wordings the case says THROWN which for some of you can imply the ball was never even nearly at the level of the rim. The ball legally touches the B player (no kick, punch etc) and goes through the hoop. If A is outside the arc when this ball is thrown it IS a three point basket.

two points
 

The touching of the ball by B1 must be an attempt to block the shot. It does not matter if B1 jumped from the 3pt or 2pt area to attempt the block. The attempt originated by A1 in the 3pt area, therefore, the goal would be 3 pts. Where A1 just releases the ball from anywhere in the 3pt area, and the ball has no chance of going in, the try ends at that point and if, by chance, the ball caroms off B1 into the basket, only two points can be awarded. Read carefully 5-2-1 again.

"A successful try, tap, or thrown ball that does not touch the floor, a teammate, or official, from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch line counts as three points. Any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown. See 4-5-4"

The last sentence is what applies. If B1 taps the ball into A1's basket, it is two points. On a play, that is not a try (or the try is over) only two points can be scored. The try is over when the ball cannot go in on its original flight. IF B1 is beyond team A's 3pt line and scores in A's goal, it is only two points. B1's release is not a try. Any time the ball goes off any team member of B, when the flight is NOT a try, only two points can be scored.

So, A1 passes the ball from behind the 3pt line. Ref determines the try is over because based on the arc, the ball cannot go in the goal on its own. B1 deflects the ball while still in flight (and it doesn't matter is B1 is beyond the 3pt line or not - the try is over!) and the ball goes through the hoop: 2 pts.

A1, behind the 3pt line, attempts a shot. B1 jumps from the 2pt area to block. Ball brushes off the fingertips of B1. Ball goes through the hoop: 3pts - why? because the ref determine the attempt was not over.

[Edited by Ref in PA on Jan 16th, 2003 at 12:15 PM]

My electronic version of 2002-03 has 4.40.1 and .2, and that's it.

For some coaches that's okay, even excellent to have some of the knowledge, but for you...? Tsk, tsk !
I hope it was given to you.

4.40.4 A(a,b) and 4.40.4 B(a,b) aren't that important anyway. They almost never happen.

mick

(For your peace of mind, there is no 4.40.3)

Re: two points
 

Where does it say legal touching must be an attempt to block a shot??? Isn't legal touching of the ball any touching that does not cause a violation?

If B1 taps the ball into A1 basket on a release from A1 behind the 3 point line it is a three that is the rule change read case 5.2.1C remember it says the ball is thrown this is not a try. The try never started. Rule 5.2.1 differentiates between a tap, try, and a throw. The official cannot determine that a try has ended when it never started. IS an ally-oop throw a pass or a try?? If it goes in the bucket thrown from behind the three point line it is a three. This was obviously not inteded as a try but a pass or (a THROW). See case 5.2.1B


The try never started it is a pass. That is why 5.2.1 differentiates between the two.


A1, behind the 3pt line, attempts a shot. B1 jumps from the 2pt area to block. Ball brushes off the fingertips of B1. Ball goes through the hoop: 3pts - why? because the ref determine the attempt was not over.

[Edited by MN 3 Sport Ref on Jan 16th, 2003 at 01:39 PM]

MN
I think you mis-interpret the reason behind the NF case 5.2.1. You seem to believe that this is a non-try that NF is saying is a 3 point goal, then take that case to say that other situations of where a try has ended can also result in a 3 pt goal.

I believe 5.2.1 is intended to eliminate the discussion we had last year about whether an official should be guessing the intention of the player who throws a ball from behind the line and it goes in. I believe that NF is classifying any throw that ends up in the thrower's basket as a try, so if it is thrown from behind the three point line, it is a 3 pt try.

As for a defensive player touching the ball legally after the try is released, this is clearly defined by rule as a try that has not yet ended. The try starts on release and ends only under specific circumstances previously cited in this thread. B tipping the ball on the way up is not one of those specific circumstances. Therefore, the try clearly has not yet ended. The case exists to show that the try is a 3 pt try based on the last place it was touched by A, so that B touching within the arc a try by A that was initiated outside the arc does not alter that 3 pt try to a 2 pt try. whew

If the ball comes below the rim, it has ended. B now touching the ball is not touching a try, but rather touching a loose ball inside the arc. Now if it goes in, it goes in because B initiated an action. But the action B initiated was never a try. A's try ended when the ball came down, and B cannot start a try at his opponent's basket (by rule as well). So here you have no try, but 2 pts to A for B's erroneous tip/bounce.



[Edited by Hawks Coach on Jan 16th, 2003 at 02:19 PM]

Hawks:

As I have stated before yes, this was the intent of the FED's rule change. Obviously an ally-oop is meant to be a pass not a try. This is why as I have stated the fed differentiates between a thrown ball, a tipped ball and a try. However when they made this change to include a pass that enters the basket THROWN from behind the three point line. The failed or did not want to include the fact that a thrown ball that is below the rim and legally touched, tipped, headed, etc by the defensive team counts three points as well. I assume this may change, I don't like the ruling either but I believe until they do unfortunately this is a three point award. It no where indicates that a thrown ball is the same as a try and cannot be treated as such. 5.2.1 backs this as it uses both the words try and thrown indicating that they are not the same. They failed to give the fact that the thrown ball (remember this is not a try it is a pass) touched below the level of the rim which meets the conditions of 5.2.1 is not a three point basket. IF they intended this to include a try only why in case 5.2.1C do they use the word THROWN ball instead of saying "a try from...."???

I love playing the devil's advocate on rules such as this because I truely belive that arguing within the rules such as this makes us much stronger officials!! :D

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]There's the original quote of Nevadaref's above!

Casebook play 4.40.4SitB states "A1's three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of (a2);or(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)

It's two points if it hits B1's shoulder,but it's three points if it hits B1's head.

You guys are unbelievable.I don't think that I'm gonna argue this one further.

Yes, but not if we can't come to a final resolution.

5.2.1C is in the casebook under a section heading THREE POINT TRY. It uses the word touch (not bounce) and it uses the words continues in flight (not bounce).

Now I realize that for a ball to bounce it must touch something and after bouncing it could be considered to still be in flight because the ball is still in the air. BUT a touch is not a bounce and 'continues in flight' is not a change from a downward direction to an upward direction. (All sqaures are rectangles but all rectangles are not squares.)

5.2.1C has got to be talking about slight changes in direction while the ball is in its upward flight... maybe even pushing the ball up higher but continuing in its flight (upwards).

I will not award 3 points for a ball that bounces (changes direction from down to up) off a player. PERIOD That cannot possibly be the intent of this rule.

And Hawk's Coach, Rule 4.40 has 8 articles.

There's the original quote of Nevadaref's above!

Casebook play 4.40.4SitB states "A1's three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of (a2);or(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)

It's two points if it hits B1's shoulder,but it's three points if it hits B1's head.

You guys are unbelievable.I don't think that I'm gonna argue this one further. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR:
I'll simplify my argument as much as I can. IMO we are not talking about a try here. Read my post above. If the FED was treating this as a try here why for God's ake do they use the word THROWN and not try in case 5.2.1C they seem to have no problem differentiating it elsewhere in the case and rules books. Should every thrown (read passed) ball be considered a try??? Lets see what kind of can of worms that could open up. :eek:

A thrown ball is not a try. Reading the case I have presented 3 times now straight from the case book, it is never implied that A1's throw is a try it is a THROWN ball not a try. For a released ball to be a try the players intent is to have it directly enter the basket. Consider case 5.2.1C to be a perimeter player trying to force a pass into the low block and it hits a defender in the head at the ft line. That is the case I am arguning here not that this is a try. That is exactly what Nevadaref is correctly IMO arguing as well. Again (for the fifth time) I do not like this ruling either however how many times have we argued that we have to enforce the rules as they are written???

[Edited by MN 3 Sport Ref on Jan 16th, 2003 at 02:55 PM]

DownTownTonyBrown,
Hawks Coach was in the electronic Case book 4.40.
Rules are 4-40-1 thru 8. I bet he has those. ;)
mick

OOOpps my mistake.The casebook only has 4 situations.

Minnesota 3, Viking, Nevada...... NO WAY!

I have the coach version, which under the coach rule says we only have to read half the rules and 1/4 of the cases, and only if those will benefit us in some way :)

JR:
I'll simplify my argument as much as I can. IMO we are not talking about a try here. Read my post above. If the FED was treating this as a try here why for God's ake do they use the word THROWN and not try in case 5.2.1C they seem to have no problem differentiating it elsewhere in the case and rules books.[/B][/QUOTE]I'll simplify my response as much as I can.

Casebook play 5.2.1c is listed under "THREE-POINT TRY"!That's T-R-Y!!! It's NOT listed under "THREE-POINT THROW"!

I wasn't gonna reply,but I couldn't let that one go by!