Duke/UNC
 

Situation - Duke down 3 and takes 3 point shot and is tipped into the goal by UNC player. Officials gather and rule a 2 point goal. Explanation is shot didn't have chance to go in.

NCAA book downstairs, but NFHS 5.2.1.c sit a says it should be a three and gives no consideration to "chance to go in"

Is the NCAA rule the same?

Also, we are allowed to use the monitor to rule on a two or three point shot. I don't remember it being limited to behind the line situations, therefore couldn't they of gone to the monitor? Seems like a good reason to use it if you're allowed. Did i miss something in their ruling?

The try ends when it is obvious it is not successful: 4-73-4.

Very good. That explains the ruling. I'm going to do the not to question their judgement (but do it anyway) - was it obvious? Via TV it wasn't imho, trying to envision the view from the court.

Give me the time of the play and I can have it up later tonight or tomorrow afternoon.

Not sure on time, but was their possession before the Rivers shot at the buzzer to win it.

Curry had a travel inside the 2 minute mark that I might have called in the
9-10 year old league.

16 or 17 seconds left in the game. The call was never in doubt in my mind.

My take...
 

Watching it live I thought the try had ended... I thought it was a good call.

Looks like im in the minority, good call it is

Yes it was obvious. Otherwise, it would have been goaltending.

Yes, watching live the ball was wide and short of the rim and the try clearly ended IMO.

And Curry did get away with an egregious walk just before a crucial three that made it a 4 point game under 2:00.

Great game though. I can't wait for the sequel in Cameron.

The travel looked like he got his foot caught and he double tapped the floor with it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hDNmjbPsrx0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NRt-I4v7R6c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The relevant NFHS case play would be 4.41.4B, not 5.2.1.c

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) 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)

The only difference is that the shot was way long and had completely passed the rim (note where the tap back hit the board before it dropped in the basket) and it was hit by a hand and not a shoulder.

NCAA

A.R. 135. A ball passed from behind the three-point line:
(1) Enters the basket from above and passes through;
(2) Is deflected and enters the basket from above and passes
through; or
RULING: (1) A three-point goal shall be counted.
(2) When there is no possibility of the ball entering the basket from
above and the deflection causes the goal to be successful, it shall be a
two-point goal. However, when a ball is passed in the direction of the
basket with the possibility of entering the basket from above and the
deflection does not influence its success, a three-point goal shall be
counted.

APG, thanks for taking the time to post these for the rest of us - on many occasions. Big help in reviewing what everyone is talking about!

Non-calls like that at the D-I level are what end up killing us with kids at the lower college and H.S. The kids see that and think it's okay then they look at us as though we have two heads when we actually call them for traveling.

I've had more than a few games where kids have caught the ball with both feet on the floor and then jumped to face another direction and couldn't understand why they were called for traveling.

last second shot Duke/NC
 

I was always taught on last second made shot to first signal basket good, then three signal if applicable. I didn't see that last night.

1) clear it was good, no need to confirm?
2) not a NCAAM mechanic
3) not a fed mechanic
4) just forgot.

The C went up with the 3 attempt and then the touchdown when it went in, which is more than enough. Signaling a made field goal by "scoring" it then going to the TD signal would've been redundant. The only way the shot wouldn't have counted is if Rivers hadn't released it before time expired, in which case the C (hopefully) would've been waving it off as soon as the horn sounded.

I'd vote for 5) -- you were taught incorrectly, or don't remember what you were taught.

At my age, I'll opt for don't remember what I was taught.

not to hijack this thread about the 3 vs 2 tip in....ok...i'll hijack....

I would not have called a travel on the Curry 3pt shot.

caught ball with right foot on ground.
put left foot down (pivot foot) = 1 step
then double tapped his right foot = 2 step
then left floor to shoot.

it looked funny; but I would only have called a travel IF his right foot WAS NOT already on the ground prior to catching the ball.

If you were calling an NBA game, then you would be right in not calling this a travel. Under NF/NCAA this is a travel as the right foot was the pivot.

Specifically:

1. Ball is gathered with right foot on the floor.
2. Player steps with his left foot. By virtue of doing this, the player has established his right foot as the pivot foot.
3. He then picks up and steps with his right foot, his pivot foot.

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

He identified his right foot? I'm sure you meant "He then raises and steps ..."

You shouldn't be giving out misinformation like that.

(Just trying out something I "learned" to see if it works for me.)

LOL!

Lah me ;)

LOL!!! I needed that laugh.

Peace

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?

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?

What you missed (all of you)
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cVSJi4uCIug" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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. :(

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.