The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2012, 06:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duke vs. UNC IREFU2 Basketball 21 Wed Mar 08, 2006 04:19pm
Duke vs. BC IREFU2 Basketball 57 Mon Feb 06, 2006 04:40pm
UNC vs. Duke IREFU2 Basketball 8 Mon Mar 07, 2005 01:56pm
VT vs. Duke brandan89 Basketball 16 Tue Feb 01, 2005 04:28pm
UVA vs Duke Suppref Basketball 15 Sat Feb 17, 2001 09:51am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1