What else could you possibly call it,Jeff? The player's taking a shot,and someone blocked it AFTER the player started the try.Can't call it a "steal",for instance.Terminology doesn't fit.

Can you think of anything else to call it? I can't.

* 4 pages now,Tony.

Yeah but that's only because my #1 groupie showed up!! :D

Re: Jurassic, I quoted you the rules.
 

If the try has begun, of course it is. :(

BBK: I think we agree that there is no case law
 

on this situation, not that anyone has uncovered. So I am trying to reference 'common practice'. Are you suggesting that it is common practice, when a player has picked up the ball and has it at waist level or below and it is batted out of his hands, to consider that a blocked shot?

I dont' <b>know</b>. I don't think so - though perhaps the ramifications of whether it is or isn't rarely come up!

I don't think I want to ask a focus group of statisticians . . . although, good God, there is an NCAA manual for basketball statisticians, is there not? Perhaps we <u>should</u> check it out . . .

Re: BBK: I think we agree that there is no case law
 

Jeff, no, it's not common practice. It's the rule. This one isn't rocket science. A try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball. If the ball is slapped away by a defender after the motion has begun, YES SIR, IT IS A BLOCKED SHOT. There is no question about that.

If there was a foul, wouldn't you give the shooter two FTs? If so, how can you not consider it a blocked shot if there is not contact?

There is no gray area here. If you think this isn't a block, you're dead wrong. Use the rules. That's why we have them.

Wow, four pages on a crazy play that happened to me! Thanks to all that posted for the insights. Using Tony's last post as a summary here are my current thoughts on the play:

Tony, I agree with all of this. However, it all occurs with team control. So, we have only shown that you can have a try and a blocked shot during team control.
Sure, you can be fouled in the act of shooting and during team control! And even while "on the floor!" :)

Therefore, I should have used more precise language in my original post. I should have written "thinking team control ended with the blocked shot, I let play continue."

Now I believe that the try and the block occurred during team control since the ball had not been released by the shooter, and that it was a backcourt violation.
I base my belief on the following reasoning:
How do I know that the shooter didn't change his mind at the last moment and was intending to fire a pass to a teammate under the basket when the ball was swatted from his hands?
We all agree that if a player is passing to a teammate and the ball is slapped out of his hands team control still exists. However, since we cannot read the player's minds, what their intent is (to shoot or to pass) has to be irrelavent.
This leaves us with the problem of determining exactly when this try ends. I think that Lotto has come closest to my view, when he said the try ended with the block. I now have to support this with the wording of the rule in 4-40.
Article 2 says in part, "A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team's own basket."
Part of Article 4 tells us that the try ends "when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful."
I have focused on the parts in bold because they stress that the attempt to score must be due to a throw by the offensive player. If the player is prevented from throwing the ball in an attempt to score, it is logical to conclude that it is certain that his try will be unsuccessful (unless it is an attempted dunk!). Hence, my understanding of this rule is that if the flight of the ball is not due to the offensive player throwing it, it no longer qualifies as part of a try! "THE THROW" simply never took place.
Since the flight of the ball on this play is the result of a bat by a defensive player and not a throw by an offensive player, we do not have the ball "in flight during a try," (4-12-3) and thus team control continues.
Note that this understanding also nicely handles Chuck's twist about the direction that the batted ball goes. It doesn't matter, it is not a throw by the offensive player, no matter which way it goes it is not a try.

Who makes the ball move?
 

In short, think of who supplies the power for the movement of the basketball. If it is the offensive player, then you have a throw for goal and a try in flight, if it is a defensive player you simply have a loose ball flying around.

BBR: The rules are nice.
 

And I use them. Consider Adam Sandler. "I like money. I use it."

What about the case where a player is driving and has just picked up the ball and a defender ducks inside and slaps the ball away. Nobody thinks of that as a blocked shot. Except you. <i>Just kidding</i>. But I'll bet you a great majority of officials don't. Does this jibe with the 'reality' that, if there is a foul, right-thinking officials are going to award two shots? No, it doesn't.

Nevada: your interpretation, if I understand
 

you correctly, is that there is a block, and that, once the block occurs and the ball is not released, the try ends - thus team control is never relinquished and we have backcourt.

I like it. It serves the greater good of not allowing rules to have unintended consequences.

Your thinking has a nice parallel in the way 'catching the tap' was handled in high school, at least until last year! You caught the tap, you gained possession - thus Team B got the arrow; then you were in violation by virtue of having caught the tap, and Team B got the ball. Even though there is some compelling logic to this, the committee trashed it to make the outcome (you lose the ball, get the arrow) parallel with other situations, and, perhaps, less onerous to one team.

Re: Nevada: your interpretation, if I understand
 

Yeah, that's a great reason to make or not make a call. :(

Re: Re: Re: BktBallRef: you're my favorite poster
 

Uh, Tony, similar to Chuck's 3-second count, the cheerleaders aren't drooling over you - they're looking at the point guard camped out in the lane.

So you're recommending that you just ignore a rule because you don't like the consequences? That means you're gonna deliberately make your call opposite to what a written rule tells you should be the right call?

Don't think that that one's gonna fly,podner! :D

Jurassic: I'm not saying that at all.
 

I don't think the rules are well drawn in this case, but I could live with that. I say Nevada has covered that problem. And, for sure, good officiating is not slavish application of the rules. That way lies madness.

Re: Jurassic: I'm not saying that at all.
 

Jeff,as I said before(way before),I don't think that this particular case is definitively covered.It's fun to play around with,though.The rule that BBR cited about the definition of a try is probably the closest thing in the book right now to covering it.That's why I agreed with him on the concept of team control actually being lost.In a case like this,you have to use what is available.If you don't have book language as compelling as BBR's to cite,then you must go with the best that you do have available.

I certainly agree with you that good officiating is not a slavish application of the rules.I certainly wouldn't put this particular play of Nevada's in the same category,though,of calling 3 seconds literally,or enforcing the 6 foot closely gaurded rule to the inch,when there is no defensive pressure.

Re: Jurassic: I'm not saying that at all.
 

So, you would call a BC violation in this situaion, when there's a definite question as to whether team control ended or not? :(

That's like calling traveling because it looked like he traveled, or because you like it. Oops, you already made that statement, didn't you? :)

Sounds like madness to me. :p