I asked this question in a different forum last year and couldn't get a definitive answer, I'm not sure if there is one.

If A1 releases the ball on his/her dribble and pushes it to the floor but hits his/her foot and goes directly back into A1's hands where he/she catches it. Does A1 have another dribble?

Rule book says a dribble is when the ball is pushed TO THE FLOOR. This was pushed towards the floor but never actually hit the floor. Is the foot considered part of the floor?

What are your thoughts?

When a player holding the ball releases it, it's a pass, a shot, a dribble, or a fumble. This most clearly is not a pass or a shot. This does not qualify as a fumble, because the player intended to release the ball. It's a dribble, because it was meant to be a dribble. JMO

Certainly an illegal dribble if player begins another dribble.

Even if this is theoretically possible, you'd probably have a travel, if not an illegal dribble.

Don't even try to justify a non-call with a techinal explaination....

...or are you trying to win a bar bet?

The most sensible thing is to call a double dribble. It was just one of those things that almost happened in a game and started me thinking (and looking up) what the rule would be.

I agree. The safest thing is to call the violation.

Playing Devil's advocate
 

What is the basis of a violation call?

It would seem the strongest arguement for a violation would be an intentional kick. However, based on the information provided in the original post, it appears that this should not be ruled as an intentional kick.

Rule 4-29 Kicking the ball is intentionally (bold added) striking it with the knee or any part of the leg or foot below the knee.

This is definitely NOT a double dribble unless the player AGAIN attempts to dribble.

[Edited by williebfree on Jan 13th, 2003 at 08:54 PM]

Hawks Coach,
If a player stands without moving her pivot foot and tosses the ball back and forth, from one hand to the other, whatcha got? ;)

This is EXACTLY what I thought before I made my post above :D

I believe we discussed this last year with no resolution.

I believe I'll stay out of it this year. :)

All I'll say is look for a reason not to call soemthing. ;)

I do not believe A1 can dribble again. This may be stretching it just a bit, but if a live ball strikes a player on the floor, it is as if it has struck the floor where the player is standing. So, you could argue that A1 begin his/her dribble, the ball touched the floor by virtue of striking A1, and A1 picked up the dribble. It was obviously A1's intention to dribble, and his/her own fumble caused him/her to have to pick it up again. Just my opinion.

Oh man,

If this situation was the biggest bone of contention in the game, were those refs ever doing a great job!

This is not true. You are thinking of 4-4-4, however, that rule is only used for determining the ball's location, i.e. whether it is in the frontcourt or backcourt, inbounds or OOB. You do not use this rule to say that a ball has hit the floor when it has not. Your virtual touching concept is not approved by the NFHS.
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.

Therefore, the bouncing of the ball off a player's own foot does not constitute a dribble by rule. I say that he may still legally dribble after catching the ball. Think of what you would call if he bounced it off his knee! Great move.

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.
[/B][/QUOTE]I think that you might want to find another case to prove your point.:D The 3 point try ended when it was obviously short or below the rim.

See Rule 4-40-4 and Casebook play 4.40.4SitB(b).

JR,
Thanks to your post, this play is now confusing.
It seems that the rules committee needs to do some additional editing. 5-2-1 was changed last year and some new casebook plays were added too, but possibly not all of the old were correctly changed.
Look at 5.2.1SitC(b) it says the opposite of the casebook play that you cite! This is what I was basing my ruling on.

It's a completely different situation,Nevada.You were basing your ruling on the wrong rule.In 5.2.1Sitc(b),the play is referring to the defense touching the ball on the way up(legal touching).The legal touching doesn't end the shot,which is the rationale for scoring the three-because the 3 ORIGINATED from behind the 3-point line.In the casebook play that I quoted(which is applicable to your post above),the try ended when it was ascertained that it had no chance of going in because it was short,off-line,below rim level,etc.Two different plays-two different rulings from two different rules.

What if the ball had hit his shin instead of the foot ?? What if the ball had hit his torso instead of the foot ??

What player is *intending* to dribble (off the floor), has the ball hit another body part and catches the ball without moving the pivot foot?

I'd have a travel right here, so I wouldn't have to worry about another dribble.

I will concede that you can just release a ball and catch it again without moving (and therefore without travelling), and without passing, shooting, fumbling, or dribbling. In addition, we have some dribbling and other rules that don't appear to be designed to address this one in a million situation. The most important in my mind would be:

Rule 4, SECTION 15 DRIBBLE
ART. 3 . . . The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor.
ART. 5 . . . An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

SECTION 29 KICKING THE BALL
Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with the knee or any part of the leg or foot below the knee.


I would argue that once the player attempted to dribble and released the ball, what you now have is a dribble that could simultaneously be interrupted if it got away from him. But I would call this the start of a dribble, even if he interrupted the start of his dribble by getting his foot in the way. May not be the most pure interpretation, but this play is hardly one of purity.

If we take the more extreme view, that he intended to bounce it off his foot, he is intentionally striking the ball with his foot as well, IMO. So then you have a kicked ball situation if he does multiple bounces off the foot.

While this may not technically meet the rules, the rules do not envision every circumstance and this seems to be the best possible application of the rules to a bizarre and unlikely situation.

We tend to over work some things
 

The dribble has to start when he pushes it TOWARD the floor. I know the rule doesn't use the word "toward" but that is surely the intent (of the rule and of the player). Surely you wouldn't call it no dribble if it hit the defender's foot.

And the dribble ends when he catches it.

Perhaps he doesn't catch it but continues his dribble... his pivot foot moved with the first downward motion. If you didn't call that first downward push the beginning of a dribble, then are you going to call a travel with the second downward motion because his pivot foot has now moved?

Check CB 4.15.4D(c) "While dribbling... (c)the ball hits A1's foot and bounces away but A1 is able to overtake and pick it up.... In (c) the DRIBBLE (my emphasis) ended when A1 caught the ball... Even though the dribble has ended in (c)... A1 may recover the ball."

I realize the posted scenario doesn't include "bounces away" but this is a no-brainer. He dribbled and got lucky that it bounced back to himself.

I can't believe what I just read. The play mentioned is in NO way a 3-point shot. The rule that makes a thrown ball a 3 if it goes in only applies to throws that arguably could be a try. A clear pass that is deflected into the basket is not considered a 3. If a ball that is thrown from outside the 3-point arc is touched in the lane there are 4 possibilties (that I can think of).
<OL>
<LI>The shot was missed...the try is over
<LI>Basket Interference
<LI>Goaltending
<LI>It was not a try, but a pass
</OL>

Either the first or the last applies. 2 points if it goes in.

Good call Cameron
 

Nevadaref
You have to read further into rule 4 to get the three point call right (and it clearly is not a three).

4-40
ART. 4 . . . The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead.

The three point try ended when the ball hit the player's head because it was certain that it would not be successful (unless that head was directly in line with and above the cylinder so that the player was goaltending with his head - and I'd like to see that play!). In either case, the try ended when the ball hit the player's head, one because it was clear the throw was not going in, and the later because goaltending made the ball dead.

I must add that I can't see why there is a need to have a touching the floor provision, since once the ball is below the rim you are certain that the throw was unsuccessful. 9.9 feet above the floor should be sufficient to end a try every time, because something will have to intervene to make that ball go in after it gets below the rim.

I was an excellent defender.
 

That's exactly what I needed when I shot the ball, ...intervention.

A1 passes to A2 from Team A's backcourt. A1 threw the ball to hard...basketball goes through Team A's basket in the frontcourt.
Whatta ya got? 2pts. or 3pts.?
NFHS

Dude

/QUOTE][/B]

A1 passes to A2 from Team A's backcourt. A1 threw the ball to hard...basketball goes through Team A's basket in the frontcourt.
Whatta ya got? 2pts. or 3pts.?
NFHS

Dude [/B][/QUOTE]


3 points.

What?
 

Huhh???

A1 pass bounces off of A2 and goes through Team A basket? Is that what you asked?

If so, this is not a 3-point attempt and would not be scored as such... independent of A1's location when he passed the ball.

2 points for the team, credited to no one.

Re: I was an excellent defender,but...
 

Ya had left-handed balls,though!

If it goes directly in the basket, 3. If it is below the rim and hits A2 then goes in, 2 points.

That is the purpose of the new rule. We don't have to figure out if it was a pass or shot when it goes directly in. It has not changed effect of a shot/pass that falls below the rim and then is deflected in. The original "try" has ended and the score is by the player who deflected the ball.

Re: What?
 

No, ball did not touch any other player.
A1 TRIED to pass it to A2...ball hit nothing but net! ;)

Dude

A response to those in disbelief.
 

Guys this rule was changed LAST year. Here is the current wording:
5-2-1 ...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 three points. Any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown.

Now let's review the play that I first wrote: "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."
1. Was this a thrown ball, from the field, by a player who is located behind the team's own 3pt. line? Yes.
2. Did the ball touch the floor? No.
3. Did the ball touch a teammate? No. It hit an opponent.
4. Did the ball touch an official? No.
RULING: It counts for three points!

In addition, the casebook play that accompanies this rule has been reworded THIS YEAR. Here is this year's wording:
5.2.1 Situation C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: (a) B1 who is in the three-point area; (b) B1 who is in the two-point area; (c) A2 who is in the three-point area; or (d) A2 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. Ruling: In (a) and (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line. In (c), score three points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred behind the three-point line. In (d), score two points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred in the two-point area.

My play falls under part (b) of this Case Book play and is ruled to be three-points.

It is my belief that since both of these were just updated, that they correctly reflect the rules committee's current view on this play. The Case Book play that JR has pointed out, 4.40.4 Situation B, which says to score two points, was not updated in the past two years. My opinion is that this was an oversight by the committee, and since they conflict, we should go with the newer ruling.

It seems that the main point of those taking the other side is that the ball was below the level of the ring when it hit the defender. According to the new wording of 5-2-1 this no longer matters. Adding the words "thrown ball" to the rule means that it no longer has to be a try. We now only have to look at where the ball was thrown from, and what it hit before going into the basket.

Hey, I don't write the rules, I just read them!

Camron,
I completely disagree. Your last two sentences are merely your opinions. That is not what the amended 5-2-1 says. As I detailed in my last post above, according to the black and white words of the rule this play is worth 3 points.

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]This is your original post,Nevada.Please compare it your post above.Please note your use of the word "legally" in your post above,as well as in the rule that you quoted.Please ask yourself the very simple question "can any player LEGALLY touch a ball if it is on the way down,and what happens if they do?" For B1 to "legally" touch the ball in this case, then the ball must still be on the way up and B1's head must have been,at a very minimum,more than 10 feet up when the ball hit it. Please tell us how many eleven foot tall basketball players you have seen lately!

You have no rules basis to make the claim that you are making.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 16th, 2003 at 06:25 AM]

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.

Re: Re: I was an excellent defender,but...
 

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

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.

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.

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!

It depends on what the definition of legal is
 

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.

Re: It depends on what the definition of legal is
 

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.

My 4.40 stops at .2??

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?

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.

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!

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.

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

JR,
FWIW, I agree with you. :)
mick

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!

I don't have my rulebooks at work today, so can someone look up in Rule 4 the definition of shot or try...doesn't the definition (or the words being defined) include the word "thrown"???

Rocky
Rule 4-40-2
A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team' s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal.

The official's judgment part, I will concede, leads one to question the case 5.2.1 as being a try. However, as I have said before, I think the case exists to take official's judgment out of any situation involving A throwing and ball going into A's basket because it has become a try, regardless of what you may have thought it was. If it doesn't go in, you are still authorized under 4-40-2 to determine whether you think it is a try (e.g., in awarding two FTs).

MN-essentially, JR and I agree on this, and you have a different interpretation of 5.2.1 which also allows you to ignore a case and rules that completely conflict with your interpretation. JR and I have an interpretation of 5.2.1 that allows 4.40.4 to make sense and be completely consistent within the rules and cases. Your interpretation, no matter how you justify it, does not allow this to occur and must therefore be suspect at best.

After all these posts, I think we can all agree on one thing. When a rule is changed, it will sometimes unintentionally conflict with other existing rules. IMO, that's what happened here.

I'm going to amend my view a little bit.

The intent of this rule is to take some of the guesswork out of officiating and give a team credit for 3 points even if they were trying an alley-oop. If someone bounces a pass off of an oppenent and it goes in, I would have a hard time justifying giving them 3 points, based on common sense. (Although I do believe that's what the rule says.) I believe that was the intent of NFHS when this rule was written.

Once again, the whole point of this rule and case is to eliminate the need for a decision of whether it was a try or not. It is not for awarding 3 points for a wild ricochet.

By strict reading of the rule as you suggest, A1 could throw a bad pass into the post. B1 could tip the ball to B2 who could tip it to B3 who could tip it to B4 who could eventually tip the ball in to A basket which would be counted as a 3 pointer for A. Of course this is as patently riduculous and incorrect as is the case for a ball bouncing off someones head.

I guess they expected the officials to have enough common sense to interpet that the thrown ball being discussed is one that was thrown toward the basket. That was the whole premise for adding the new rule. There was never an issue for deflected balls going in the basket.

I do agree, however, that this thrown ball is NOT a try. The ball is dead on a horn, foul, etc.



[Edited by Camron Rust on Jan 16th, 2003 at 03:58 PM]

viking
Either the rules are in conflict, or they are just not phrased in such a way that you can tell that they do not conflict. I of course have chosen the latter interpretation, and you the former. Either way, it could be better.

I guess they expected the officials to have enough common sense to interpet that the thrown ball being discussed is one that was thrown toward the basket. That was the whole premise for adding the new rule. There was never an issue for deflected balls going in the basket.

I do agree, however, that this thrown ball is NOT a try. The ball is dead on a horn, foul, etc.
[/B][/QUOTE]I just wanna add that,in Casebook play 5.2.1SitC though,if the legal touching by B on the TRY is AFTER the horn,the ball is still alive-and the basket counts if it goes in. That's Casebook play 5.6.1SIT.

Kinda all flows together,believe it or not.:D

Thanks Hawks Coach...I knew the word thrown was in the definition of try...it seems - in reading these posts - that the whole debate has been about the word thrown ball being in case 5.2.whatever...yet the word thrown is also in the definition for try...seems pretty clear to me that we do not award three points when a passed ball bounces off someone's shoulder, hear, arse, or anything else based on 4.4.whatever...is it really the word "thrown" that is messing this up??

Re: A response to those in disbelief.
 

Let's take this a little further and add Rule 4-4 to the mix..

Ball location...ART. 5 . . . A ball which touches ..the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds...


Taken literally, if that thrown ball (or even a try) touched the backboard, it nullifies, by your interpretation, any 3-point possibility since it did touch the equivalent (by rule 4-4-5) of the floor. So, by the literal reading of the rule, and by your interp. it would be a three if it bounces off someones head and into the basket but not if it bounces off the backboard and into the basket. Can you see how silly this is getting?

Camron,
You have made a great point. In fact, you have made my original point, which was simply to show that when a ball hits a player (or in the instance that you point out the backboard) it is NOT that same as that ball actually hitting the floor. It is only to be treated as hitting the floor at that location if we have to make a judgment on the ball's location. This means whether the ball is inbounds, OOB, in the frontcourt, in the backcourt, etc. That is all that I was trying to say in the first place. Actually, if I had it to do over again, I would have chosen your example (as JR said in his first response, maybe I should pick another) to prove my point and not the one that I did select, but then look at the fascinating debate we would have missed!
Now, since three full pages of posts have gone by since I have last posted, I can finally say, after reading everyone's thoughts, the wording of the new RULE 5-2-1 (not casebook play) is simply TERRIBLE!!!
I agree with all of those that say this was written with the intent that we should no longer have to judge between a try and a pass. However, the rules committee chose their words SO POORLY that the absurd plays that many of us have concocted now result in awarding three points! The committee simply botched this one. The wording of the new rule is awful. I hope that my original post shows this. If we simply read the rule, 5-2-1, and analyze the play using it, we must award three points. Like MNREF I think this is stupid, but that is what they wrote! What should we do? Do we ignore what the new rule (and I am not talking about the casebook) says and only award two or do we enforce it AS WRITTEN (as the paragraph at the start of the rules book says to do) and give three?
Either way, we look bad, and it is the rules committee's fault. If nothing else, I hope that my original post highlights how poorly some of these rules are currently phrased. Can't they put someone on this committee who can write clearly?
My deepest regards to JR, Camron, Viking, MN, and the others who have taken the time to share their thoughts in this debate, and make us all better officials.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 18th, 2003 at 07:52 AM]

Camron,
You have made a great point. In fact, you have made my original point, which was simply to show that when a ball hits a player (or in the instance that you point out the backboard) it is NOT that same as that ball actually hitting the floor. It is only to be treated as hitting the floor at that location if we have to make a judgment on the ball's location.[/B][/QUOTE]Geeze,I hope that this doesn't start another week of posts,Nevada,but ya still got 'er wrong. The 3-point shot hitting B1 on the head in the key is EXACTLY THE SAME as hitting the floor at that location in the key-explicitly by Rule 4-4-4.That now ends the 3-point try under Rule 4-40-4.We NOW use that location to determine what happens next.That's why,if the ball now rebounds in,it's only worth 2 points,as per Rule 5-2-1. The ball touching the board in R4-4-5 DOESN'T end a try(whether it's 2 points or 3 points),so R4-40-4 is NOT applicable in that case.

JR, You missed the point that I was trying to make.
The rule Camron cited says that "A ball which touches ..the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds." My point was that this is not always true. A 3 pt. try which hits the backboard and then goes in is one such exception. For if hitting the backboard really was treated the same as hitting the floor, then this try would be over upon hitting the backboard, and the ball subsequently entering the basket would only be worth two points. This is certainly not true. That is what Camron wrote. I am saying that from this example we can infer that the ball hitting the backboard it is NOT the same as hitting the floor, not matter how plainly 4-4-5 seems to say that.
I believe that you are reading 4-4 as an absolute which applies in all situations. This is not the case. An official only applies this rule when needing to determine the ball's location in order to call a backcourt or 10 second violation, or something along these lines.

In fact, there are many situations where the application of 4-4 would be quite wrong.
Even you will concede that during a clear 3pt try (not pass or thrown ball) which is deflected on its way up by a defender who is located inside the two point area, the ball DOES NOT take on the location of that defender (as per 4-4-3) nor is the deflection THE SAME as the ball touching the floor at that defender's location (as 4-4-4 states). Rule 4-4 simply doesn't apply to this situation. That was my original point.
Now it is true that I selected a vague and poorly worded, but recently amended, rule to support this claim. You and others have made that clear and I have conceded that. However, my original point still stands. The ball touching a player IS NOT THE SAME as ACTUALLY touching the floor at that location. 4-4-4 is not a blanket rule meant to apply in all situations.
PS In the play where the ball hits the player in the head and then goes in you have incorrectly argued that this is only two points due to 4-4-4.
Even three year's ago, when we all agreed that this play was only worth two points 4-4-4 was not the reason that was so.
This rule has nothing to do with it. Even the case book play which you keep citing says that the try ended "when it was obviously short and below the ring," not when it hit the player's shoulder. That try had ended well before striking the player. So you cannot cite 4-4-4 as the reason that it ended.
Only the certainty that it will or will not be successful, actually hitting the floor (not vicariously hitting the floor), or the ball becoming dead ends a try.
For example: If a 3 pt. try on the way up happened to deflect off the head of a defender, inside the two point area, but located very near to the shooter, and then go in, it would not end and would still be worth three. No matter whether the play happened three years ago or yesterday.

Nevada,I've made all the points that I wanted to make on this sitch.If you want to disagree,fine.I stand by everything that I posted,and anything further from me is just a waste of time IMO.

...Still with you JR. ;)