Ally oop goes in!

[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.

[kspann]

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!

[hawk]

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?

[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?

[John Crow]

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!"

[JAdams]

quote:

---

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?

---

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?

[John Crow]

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

[JC]

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.

[mikesears]

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.

[walter]

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.

[fshrake]

quote:

---

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.

---

Count it !!!!!!

[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?

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

[Brian Watson]

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?

[bob jenkins]

quote:

---

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?

---

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).

[Schmidt MJ]

[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.