Duke/UNC

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by KCRC

Just curious, what do you see as the possession issue here? Did you see a bobble? The video is of average quality, but it looks to me like he caught the ball cleanly with two hands while his right foot is on the ground with no subsequent bobble/fumble? What did I miss?

Was... it happened right in front of Coach K, and the covering official wants to work some more Duke games

[jump stop]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I don't have a travel because it is about possession. I do not think he has possession of the ball while moving until his left foot is on the ground. If I have to look that closely to even think that is what took place, then I do not have a travel. I am glad they did not call that a travel.

Peace

I'm with you on this. It is difficult to tell from this video if he gathers, controls, or catches ball with right foot on floor. In my opinion you have to let it go if not 100% sure , again it looked awkward, but left foot may have been pivot foot. I think the top officials don't make calls unless absolutely sure. I bet the opposing coach did not complain. I think players, coaches and fans don't want traveling calls made unless it is definite. Well maybe not fans.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

As we've discussed before, however, this case play contradicts the actual rule, 5-2-1.

Does it matter that the ball in the A.R. is a pass, while the game situation was a try?

How does it contradict? NFHS 5-2-1 says "...try, tap, or thrown ball...", and NCAA 5-1-1 says "into whose basket the ball is thrown, tapped, or directed...", so that would include a pass, correct?

I think all the case play and A.R. tell us is we don't have to determine intent (try vs. pass) to determine if we should count 3 points when the ball originated outside the arc. But we still need to understand the difference in other aspects, such as if A1 was fouled (in the act of shooting or in the act of a pass), or if the try ended, if it was a pass that was re-directed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

As we've discussed before, however, this case play contradicts the actual rule, 5-2-1.

I assert that it doesn't. The way I read 5-2-1, there is no contradiction at all. If you have two ways to read it and one generates a contradiction and the other one doesn't that should tell you something about the contradictory interpretation.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Does it matter that the ball in the A.R. is a pass, while the game situation was a try?

Once the ball clearly misses, is it still a try? If it can no longer be goaltending, it is no longer a try.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by KCRC

Just curious, what do you see as the possession issue here? Did you see a bobble? The video is of average quality, but it looks to me like he caught the ball cleanly with two hands while his right foot is on the ground with no subsequent bobble/fumble? What did I miss?

I do not consider touching the ball possession. Again the issue might be the video and the overall quality of that video, but I thought he just was bringing in the ball with the right foot (I hope that was the right foot) on the ball. I consider possession when you clearly show you have grabbed the ball. If not then it would be very inconsistent for me to judge a travel and identify the pivot foot. I guess what I am saying, is I am not going to split hairs with a foot being on the floor and say automatically that was his pivot foot.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not consider touching the ball possession. Again the issue might be the video and the overall quality of that video, but I thought he just was bringing in the ball with the right foot (I hope that was the right foot) on the ball. I consider possession when you clearly show you have grabbed the ball. If not then it would be very inconsistent for me to judge a travel and identify the pivot foot. I guess what I am saying, is I am not going to split hairs with a foot being on the floor and say automatically that was his pivot foot.

Peace

I have a lot of no-calls because my vision is blocked enough that I can't tell exactly when the ball is gathered. I'm far more comfortable with this than with calling phantom travels.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

How does it contradict?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I assert that it doesn't. The way I read 5-2-1, there is no contradiction at all. If you have two ways to read it and one generates a contradiction and the other one doesn't that should tell you something about the contradictory interpretation.

NFHS 5-2-1: "A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points. A ball that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown."

A ball that is thrown from outside the arc and doesn't touch the floor, a teammate, or an official counts as three points. I'm not sure how there's any other way to read that. There's no mention of whether the original throw has the chance to go in. All it says is that if it starts outside the arc, it's three points unless one of those other things happens. That contradicts the case play.

Once the ball clearly misses, is it still a try? If it can no longer be goaltending, it is no longer a try.

Neither is it a pass, however. And the NCAA A.R. states specifically that it deals with a ball that is "passed". I'm not saying that it DOES make a difference, I'm just asking whether it makes a difference.

[BktBallRef]

APG, see if you can pull it the foul Cahill called on McAdoo on the Duke 3 point shooter.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

NFHS 5-2-1: "A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points. A ball that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown."

A ball that is thrown from outside the arc and doesn't touch the floor, a teammate, or an official counts as three points. I'm not sure how there's any other way to read that. There's no mention of whether the original throw has the chance to go in. All it says is that if it starts outside the arc, it's three points unless one of those other things happens. That contradicts the case play.

Neither is it a pass, however. And the NCAA A.R. states specifically that it deals with a ball that is "passed". I'm not saying that it DOES make a difference, I'm just asking whether it makes a difference.

In doesn't make a difference in the counting of points, in that we do not have to judge the difference between a pass and a try when the ball goes through the basket. One possible play come to mind - A1 outside the arc puts up an alley-oop pass, but the teammate mis-times his jump, misses the ball entirely, but the ball still goes in. We all know it was a pass, but we get to count 3 points. But, let's say A1 is fouled; we still need to know the difference between a try and a pass for other portions of the rules.

In the original play, since we know it's a try, 4-41-2 applies, and thus once the try ended (certain it is unsuccessful), a new "play" starts and the ball originated in the 2-point area. I believe all they did with the case plays was just emphasize we do not have to judge intent on any "thrown" ball originating outside the arc to determine 2 or 3 points. All other rules still apply, such as judging it's a try for the purpose of calling fouls or determining when the try ends.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

NFHS 5-2-1: "A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points. A ball that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown."

A ball that is thrown from outside the arc and doesn't touch the floor, a teammate, or an official counts as three points. I'm not sure how there's any other way to read that. There's no mention of whether the original throw has the chance to go in. All it says is that if it starts outside the arc, it's three points unless one of those other things happens. That contradicts the case play.

Neither is it a pass, however. And the NCAA A.R. states specifically that it deals with a ball that is "passed". I'm not saying that it DOES make a difference, I'm just asking whether it makes a difference.

Isn't the definition of a pass a thrown ball that goes to another player?

The underlying principle of the NFHS rule as expressed by the NFHS when the rule was changed is that a ball that, as thrown, has a chance to go in need not be judged as to intent....but we still have to judge if it has a chance to go in. Once we decide it no longer can go in without additional interaction, the opportunity to count it as 3 points has ended....otherwise we'd have goaltending. Any other event which causes it to go in is a new act and is judged based on its own circumstances. It is no longer the original "thrown ball". It it were any other way, case 4.41.4B wouldn't exist.

From another angle, since we don't have to judge pass vs. try, change the word try to pass in case 4.41.4B. And change shoulder to hand (the specific body part, as long as it is not illegal, shouldn't matter).

Don't get stuck in the vacuum of 5-2-1. It is talking about a specific class of situations that were well covered and discussed when it was introduced. It was never intended nor meant to apply to a pass that never had a chance to enter the basket. It was essentially written for alley-oop plays that went directly in.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

APG, see if you can pull it the foul Cahill called on McAdoo on the Duke 3 point shooter.

[BktBallRef]

Problem with that angle is it doesn't show the floor angle. Cahill is a great official but he followed the ball instead of staying with the shooter.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jump stop

I'm with you on this. It is difficult to tell from this video if he gathers, controls, or catches ball with right foot on floor. In my opinion you have to let it go if not 100% sure , again it looked awkward, but left foot may have been pivot foot. I think the top officials don't make calls unless absolutely sure. I bet the opposing coach did not complain. I think players, coaches and fans don't want traveling calls made unless it is definite. Well maybe not fans.

What is 100% sure? How often does that actually happen? What I see is a clean catch with the right foot on the floor, a short hop, again landing on the right foot, a step with the left foot, and then a step with the right foot. I see a shooter concerned with getting his feet set properly who is oblivious to the accompanying illegal action.