|
Thu Jul 03, 2003, 11:37am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Shocked,I tell ya! 
|
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003, 11:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
Quote:
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg
|
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003, 11:57am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Chuck's got a brother?
|
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003, 11:58am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
Quote:
 Quote:
1- it's apparent the shot won't score, 2- the ball hits the floor, 3- when the ball becomes dead or 4- the shot is successful. What happens in this play? 4- the shot is successful. 3 pages already!! 
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003, 12:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg
|
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003, 12:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you say that the basket is good, then you think that A1 released a try for goal, meaning that team control ended. In that case, you also have to say that there would be no backcourt violation in the original play. If you wave off the basket, then you obviously think that A1 did not release a try for goal. In that case, you also have to say that you would call the backcourt violation. [/B][/QUOTE]Count the basket.If the defensive player fouls the shooter before the ball leaves the hand(but after the try is started),do you cancel the basket? Nope-continous motion applies-which also means there was an accompanying loss of team control because of the shot.What's really different than the defender fouling before the ball leaves the shooter's hands,or the defending knocking the ball out of the shooter's hands,and it still goes in?Take a look at casebook play 6.7.7,Chuck.That's basically what it says,I think.
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 12:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I love this question . . .
so much I wrote it up for my board members and those I assign. I'm not looking to re-open the case . . . !!!
And now, for the final exam . . . this situation, posed by Nevadaref in the online forum at http://www.officialforum.com A1, at the top of the key, beats B1 off the dribble, reaches the free throw line, and pulls up for a jumpshot. At the apex of the jump and before the ball is released, B2 comes from the side and swats the ball out of A1's hands. It goes behind A1's head and bounces near the top of the key. B2 pursues the ball and is just about to scoop it up when A1 spins around, dives, and bats the ball into the backcourt, where A2 catches it. Back court or not? The key to analysing this situation is the matter of whether or not a shot took place. When a shot (try) takes place, team control ends; if that is the case in this case, it doesn't matter that a member of Team A was last to touch it in the front court and a teammate was first to touch it in the back court. Under National Federation, Mark Padgett points out: 4-12-3 Team control continues until: a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal. b. An opponent secures control. c. The ball becomes dead. He concludes that there has, indeedm been no loss of team control by Team A and thus there has been a backcourt violation. Thus it will turn out to be the case - bear with me - and the situation is in fact analogous to the one in which the ball is tapped away from a dribbler in the frontcourt by a defender, touched again by the (now) ex-dribbler, and touched first in the backcourt by a teammate of the ex-dribbler. But analogy will not be the basis for my ruling. Another forum member, BktBallRef, who knows not only the content of the rules but also apparently knows it all by rule, section, and article, just to stir the pot of thought, points to 3 rules and attempts a noble solipsism. Can you see it? Can you feel it? 4-40-3 The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball. 4-12-3 Team control continues until: a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal. His commentary is that "the try has started (true, Ed.), the ball is swatted out of A1's hands (true, Ed.), and it's now in flight (what????, Ed.) When it's apparent the try has no chance to score, the try has ended. But team control has ended. This is a try that was slapped out of a shooter's hand, not a dribble that was slapped away by a defender. Team control has ended." Sure, the ball is in flight. So can be a seagull. So used to be the Concorde. But is this a try in flight, or simply a basketball in flight? In the absence of a specific Casebook ruling, we naturally look to common sense. In my opinion, this is not a 'try in flight'. For one thing, it's going the wrong direction. But that is not the basis of my ruling. For what if it were going in the 'right' direction? Can this hinge on that? Consider, had A1 begun a 'usual and continuous motion' and mishandled the ball, releasing it backwards over his or her head, would that then have been a shot? The ruling which makes a try begin with 'usual and continuous motion' is not meant to exempt the offensive player from, sui generis, blowing the opportunity. Why, then, would we even consider the circumstance a shot if a defender causes the shooter to lose control? The extension of the concept of a shot extending back in time to the to the point which "habitually precedes the release of the ball" is meant to enjoin defenders from unfairly taking away shot opportunities, not to protect the shooter from other dangers. Q.E.D. But not quite yet. One wag, Dan_ref, did bring up the matter of the direction the ball ended up going, to which zebraman replied: "Note that 'a try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score . . . ' Even though the shot was swatted the other direction, this doesn't change the fact that the try attempt was made towards the shooter's own basket." Oh, the wiley human. But this is fruit of the poisoned tree. We have already clarified that a try is defined for a purpose, and that purpose is not in play in the situation we are considering. The try has no dominion. Just in case anyone has given in and really thinks I'm right, here is a final confounding contribution from contributor Chuck Elias: "Let's change the scenario slightly. A1 begins his try. B1 bats the ball out of A1's hands before A1 releases the try. (So far, it's the same.) But suppose that instead of directing the ball toward the backcourt, B1's bat sends the ball toward A's goal. The ball is in flight. The horn sounds, ending the period. The ball enters the basket. You gonna count it? If you say that the basket is good, then you think that A1 released a try for goal, meaning that team control ended. In that case, you also have to say that there would be no backcourt violation in the original play. If you wave off the basket, then you obviously think that A1 did not release a try for goal. In that case, you also have to say that you would call the backcourt violation." An honorable tradition, tweak a variable, see if the thing still works. The new result certainly emphasizes that the matter of team control is the key element, but the scenario only changes things downstream from the point at which the decision must be made. The ruling stands. Backcourt violation. Next week, affirmative action in the backcourt.
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 01:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I love this question . . .
Quote:
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 01:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
BktBallRef: you're my favorite poster
I think you're taking it the wrong way. I know the Supremes when I hear them . . .
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 02:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
at the end of the post? Incredibly, this entire thread has been pretty light hearted.  Wouldn't it be interesting to see a case play or interp on the NFHS website with this scenario?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 03:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Don't agree with your interpretation,either,Jeff.Gotta quote some rules if you wanna dazzle us(even if the rules aren't relevant).
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 04:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BktBallRef: you're my favorite poster
Quote:
Heeheeheehee....
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 04:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: BktBallRef: you're my favorite poster
Quote:
 I have,...well,....dozens!
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 04:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: BktBallRef: you're my favorite poster
Quote:
|
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003, 05:57pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jurassic, I quoted you the rules.
Such as they are. They are not proscriptive on the point under consideration. 'Continuous motion' is meant (I'll bet)to prevent the defense from unfairly taking away shot opportunities, not to turn horses (balls knocked out of a player's hand(s)) into zebras (blocked shots). What if, as often happens, the ball is batted out of the player's hands earlier in the draw, barely on the way up? Is that a 'blocked shot'?
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
