Just another scenario to throw at you. Player A1 attempts an ally-oop pass to player A2 from behind the 3 point line. The ball goes through. Player A2 did not touch the ball. Do you award 2 or 3 points? By definition this was not a try but a pass that found its way to the basket. I'm curious how others would and have handled this.

As much as a fluke that it is, I would count the 3 point basket. The pass was from behind the three point line, and was not touched by another player, in the words of Keith Olberman......way down town, bang!

By rule, it's a two point basket because it wasn't a try . . .
the question really becomes whether you are going to say it wasn't a try after it goes in the basket, or are you going to assume it must have actually been a try BECAUSE it went in the basket?

In the words of a conference supervisor whose camp I attended over the weekend when asked about this very situation, "Count it as a three or tear up your contract. Who the h_ _ _ are we as officials to interpret a player's intent. If it starts behind the line, it's a three." To stay in that vein, if inbounder A1 throws a pass toward his/her basket and while the ball is in the cylinder above the ring A2 dunks it through, what's the call?

Odds are good that nobody else in the gym/state/country knows that an 80-foot pass is a 2. I think you might get murdered trying to call that a 2. Myself, I'd give the thrower, er, shooter a lot of latitude. How would I know that he was not thinking, "That guy will never catch an 80-foot ally-oop - I'm going for the basket!"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walter:
In the words of a conference supervisor whose camp I attended over the weekend when asked about this very situation, "Count it as a three or tear up your contract. Who the h_ _ _ are we as officials to interpret a player's intent. If it starts behind the line, it's a three." To stay in that vein, if inbounder A1 throws a pass toward his/her basket and while the ball is in the cylinder above the ring A2 dunks it through, what's the call?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Count a two point bucket. An inbound pass is (by definition) not a shot, so there can be no basket interference. The player above the rim catches a legal pass (not a try) and then scores the bucket. Anyone disagree?

Walter,
That's a good case. It's a pass he's grabbing and not a shot so it can't be goal tending. It's technically basket intererence but it's a great play - do you penalize a great play? I'd say you'd have to because it's really giving the offense an unfair advantage. The defense can't touch the pass when it's above the cylinder? Tough one.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walter:
In the words of a conference supervisor whose camp I attended over the weekend when asked about this very situation, "Count it as a three or tear up your contract. Who the h_ _ _ are we as officials to interpret a player's intent. If it starts behind the line, it's a three." To stay in that vein, if inbounder A1 throws a pass toward his/her basket and while the ball is in the cylinder above the ring A2 dunks it through, what's the call?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To stay in that vein, if inbounder A1 throws a pass toward his/her basket and while the ball is in the cylinder above the ring A2 dunks it through, what's the call?[/B][/QUOTE]

I call BI on A and award no points. BI doesn't require it to be a try to be a violation.
If team B commits BI on the throw-in by A1, I award 2 points to A, even though it's not a try. (NF Case 9.11.2C).

If, on the same throw-in, either team touches the ball on its downward flight above the ring with the possibility of entering the basket, I don't call anything. No violation because, even though all other criteria for goal tending are present, it is not a try.

I, too, would call it a three point basket. I heard about a guy who called it a two point basket and the coach go really upset. I appreciate the discussion on this issue.

JC hit it right on the head! I was surprised how many people at camp got it wrong when it was presented to the group in one of the classroom sessions.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikesears:
Just another scenario to throw at you. Player A1 attempts an ally-oop pass to player A2 from behind the 3 point line. The ball goes through. Player A2 did not touch the ball. Do you award 2 or 3 points? By definition this was not a try but a pass that found its way to the basket. I'm curious how others would and have handled this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Count it !!!!!!

Let me see if I have the second situation straight: A1 inbounds, A2 touches ball in area ordinarily considered goaltending, but because it is not a "try", the basket is awarded to A2? Doesn't A2 have to establish posession before he is "trying?" I don't think A2 can establish possession jumping in the air with a microtouch of a ball in the cylinder. If A2 can't establish possession, then the ball has gone in the goal without anyone establishing control. Isn't that prohibitted?

If not, consider this: A1 and A2 plan the play above, but B1 rejects the ball on the way down. This is not goaltending then, right?

It's an intriguing scenario. I would imagine that whenever the ball is given to a team with little or no time on the clock a jumpball situation in the cylinder. Reggie Miller pretty much trying a long shot from the sideline with Rick Smitts trying to touch the ball on the way down and Shaq trying to block it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The Golden Rule: Don't make a call you cannot explain.

Duck - How are you gonna exlain that logic to a coach in under 10 minutes?

I have never seen this, and I hope I never do. Is there a case book ruling or an interp out there?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Duck1:
Let me see if I have the second situation straight: A1 inbounds, A2 touches ball in area ordinarily considered goaltending, but because it is not a "try", the basket is awarded to A2? Doesn't A2 have to establish posession before he is "trying?" I don't think A2 can establish possession jumping in the air with a microtouch of a ball in the cylinder. If A2 can't establish possession, then the ball has gone in the goal without anyone establishing control. Isn't that prohibitted?

If not, consider this: A1 and A2 plan the play above, but B1 rejects the ball on the way down. This is not goaltending then, right?


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


First question -- yes, you have to establish control to "try" for a basket. But, you can also score on a tap (in fact, that's the only way you can score on an out of bounds play with .3 sconds or less left).

Second question -- Right -- it's not goaltending. Remember, though, that the contact must be outside the cylinder. If it's inside the cylinder, it's BI (by either team).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Duck1:
[B]Let me see if I have the second situation straight: A1 inbounds, A2 touches ball in area ordinarily considered goaltending, but because it is not a "try", the basket is awarded to A2? Doesn't A2 have to establish posession before he is "trying?" I don't think A2 can establish possession jumping in the air with a microtouch of a ball in the cylinder. If A2 can't establish possession, then the ball has gone in the goal without anyone establishing control. Isn't that prohibitted?


Duck1,
I'll admit this is an interesting scenario and fortunately one that we'll probably never see. But I think there are two rules which may help in how to interpret what the correct call is. 1) It is a violation for the inbounder to throw the ball in such a way that it enters the basket before it is touched by another player. I don't have my rule book with me but I don't believe it says that the player who touches the ball has to establish possession, all he has to do is touch it before it enters the hoop. Therefore a "microtouch" would be sufficient. 2) With 3/10th's of a second or less on the clock, an inbounds play cannot score a goal by a try, only a tap could score. This means that a player could not catch the ball and then shoot or dunk. It would simply be a play where the inbounds pass was tapped or batted towards the goal. I believe this would also fall under the "microtouch" philosophy. I don't believe either of these rules would negate the goaltending aspect by the defense. Those restrictions would still be in effect, I believe, so it may be a situation where the offense would have an advantage. Hope this helps clarify some of the confusion.

Hmmm..shouldn"t ally-opps and slam dunks be offensive basket interference calls..You got ball in cylinder area w/hand or hands touching ball and or rim ?????

Steve - In the Rulebook it explains that hands in the cyclinder for a dunk are OK and not BI. Forget where it's said. Check the definition of BI.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Crow:
Steve - In the Rulebook it explains that hands in the cyclinder for a dunk are OK and not BI. Forget where it's said. Check the definition of BI.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a difference in this rule exception between a dunk and an alley-oop. If the player in control is dunking, he may have his hand in the cylinder. But if a different player has his hand in the cylinder and touches the ball while it is in there on a pass or shot attempt, it is BI.

Yeah - I know most of us don't recognize that there can be a pass into the cylinder.

Speaking about a legal try,A1 gets confused and shoots at B's basket,the shot meets all of the criteria for GT, B1 slaps the ball away. Do you count the score?

What if the ball was in the cylinder?Joey,GA

No GT because no try.

In the cylinder, I think you have OFFENSIVE BI, and the ball goes back to the guy shooting at the wrong hoop.

Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who tries to block his shot . . .

In order for it to be goal tending it must be
a try. shooting at the wrong basket is not a try...no violation

For basket interference the ball must be on
above or in the cylinder and it doesn't matter how it gets there. If BI is caused by the team whose basket the ball was shot at erroneously the ball is awarded OOB on the endline and no points scored. If BI on the errant shooters team award 2 points(even if behind the 3 pt line)
and give ball back to this team OOB at end line.....


------------------

I agree with Walter. We can't know intent. We only judge actions and their results. This is a 3!!! Take Walter's second example another way. A1 has a spot throw in from out of bounds and attempts alley op to A2. B1 is first to touch ball while in the cylinder. What's the call???

BI on Tean B. A live ball touch in the cylinder is BI. It doesn't matter how the ball got there. The trick comes in the ruling and penalty. Score two points for team A, team B's ball out of bounds on the endline, team B can run the endline for the throw-in. Only difference is that the official shall place the ball at B's disposal. Same in NCAA and NFHS. NCAA Rules Interpretations 9-15-2, NFHS casebook 9.11.2C.

Now i can see if the offensive is in a half court set and the ball goes in. That would be easy to solve, just give them three. However what would happen if the ally pass was on the fast break and was thrown from the center line. Kinda hard to say that it was an attempt.
Another situation...offensive player tries to saves the ball from going out of bounds by throwing the ball over their head with back to hoop. Ball goes in. 2 or 3 ?

Use your judgement and the rules. An ally oop is a pass, simple if the ball goes in by accident award 2 if a shot award 3. Simply.

“Who are we to judge intent?”

We are the officials, and it’s our job. The difference between hard contact that draws a foul and punch that draws an ejection is intent. The difference between slamming a ball in frustration of poor play that draws a warning and slamming a ball in protest of a call that draws a technical is intent. The difference between grabbing the rim to prevent coming down on a poorly positioned defender and grabbing the rim to show up the defender is intent. Whether you like it or not, every time you call any fowl “in the act of shooting”, you are calling intent. Indeed, there is a rule called “intentional fowling”, which by definition requires the interpretation of intent as the name implies.

In the case of the ally-oop that goes in, if the player watching his teammate cut to the basket, is flat-footed as he throws the ball, and throws the ball like someone making pass rather than a shot, and then gives you that “oh looky what I found” after it goes in, he gets two. Any ref who doesn’t call it that way is too timid or too lazy to explain it to the coach and is hoping that the other coach doesn’t know the rule well enough to object.

I for one will count it a three. You may be the best official in the country, but i don't think you will be working in many leagues when you start calling two points for that type of play. There are many plays in a game that we make judgement. If I'm going to pick a battle, it won't be over calling it a two.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bart Tyson:
I for one will count it a three. You may be the best official in the country, but i don't think you will be working in many leagues when you start calling two points for that type of play. There are many plays in a game that we make judgement. If I'm going to pick a battle, it won't be over calling it a two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't your are picking the battle, except for it will be with the coach that knows it's a two and you call it a three. Go with the rule, that's your back up, don't use your judgement and then decide to go against the rule. Alot of coaches know the rules, be careful.
keep smiling
SH