one in four years
 

I botched my first backcourt call in over four years tonight.
Blue on offense, Black on defense. I am trail.
A player for blue beats his defender with the dribble at the top of the key. He reaches the free throw line and pulls up for a jumpshot. Just as he reaches the apex of his jump and prepares to release the shot, a second defender comes from the side and swats the ball from his hands. The ball goes behind the shooter's head and bounces on the floor near the top of the key. This defender for black continues in his path and is just about to scoop up the ball, when the original shooter spins around, dives backward, and bats the ball into the backcourt where a waiting teammate of his catches it.
Thinking that a shot was attempted and blocked, I let play continue. Shame on me.
Hopefully someone on the board will learn from this play. I know I did.

Re: one in four years
 

Why isn't this a shot?

I'm with Tony on this. Even though the shot never actually "took flight," I would think that a blocked shot attempt would satisfy the <b> intent </b> of the team control rule. Seems that team control would end on the blocked attempt. I wouldn't call this as a backcourt violation.

Z

Z, how could you say that there's no team control, when the ball is still clearly in his hands?

Re: Re: one in four years
 

It is a shot ("try"), but there's no loss of team control:

NCAA 4-13 (Def'n of "In-control---player, team")
Art. 3. Team control shall continue until the ball is in flight during a try for goal, an opponent secures control or the ball becomes dead.

Since the ball was swatted before the try, there's still team control, so the play described is a backcourt violation.

I wouldn't have gotten this right either! Thanks for sharing...

Hmmmmm...I don't have my fed book with me so I can only quote the NCAA rule now. I think I'm quoting everything that applies here.

(I see Lotto beat me to it! :) )


[Edited by Dan_ref on Jul 3rd, 2003 at 10:03 AM]

NF 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.

No flight - no loss of team control.

THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

Okay, it's on! Here we go!! :D

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.

The try has started, the ball is swatted out of his hand, it's now in flight. 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.

Your turn! ;)

I agree that wording "in flight," makes it appear as if there is still team control. However, I wonder about the <b>intent </b>of the rule. It would be interesting to see a case book play on that one. The try motion has obviously started and the ball is certainly in flight once it is swatted. :-) Where are the lawyers for Mike Price and Rick Neuheisel when you need them?

Z

Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

We need an emoticon for speechless, but let's try this:

4-66-1

A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score 2 or 3 points by throwing or tapping the ball into his or her basket.

Clearly the ball is in flight away from the shooter's own basket, in fact it is in flight towards his oppnent's basket, is it not? I request the court rule in my favor that this play does not meet the requirements as set forth and rule that team control has not ended.

Nothing further, your honor.

:)

Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

Casebook play 4.12COMMENT says there's no team control after the ball has left the hand on a try or tap for goal.It doesn't say HOW it leaves the hand,which is Tony's point.Also,casebook play 9.5.1 talks about a blocked shot.Using the same logic as 9.5.1,if B1 knocks the ball out of A1's hands on a shot,and A1 recovers it in the air and comes down,are you gonna call A1 for travelling? I'm not! I think that I'm going with Tony on this one(at least,until something else might get pointed out :D).

Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score 2 or 3 points by throwing or tapping the ball into his or her basket. Clearly the ball is in flight away from the shooter's own basket, in fact it is in flight towards his oppnent's basket, is it not? I request the court rule in my favor that this play does not meet the requirements as set forth and rule that team control has not ended. Nothing further, your honor.

Motion denied with force. Note that the words you quoted say that it is an <b> attempt </b> to score into <b> his or her </B> own basket. 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. :-)

Z

Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

We need an emoticon for speechless, but let's try this:

[/B][/QUOTE]http://www.gifs.net/other/crit_suc.gif

Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

As I recall those case plays under 9-5 refer to how a dribble ends for the purposes of determining travel, and 9.5.1 is one of those ways - am I right? If so then I'm not sure 9-5-1 can be extended to include what constitues loss of team control. Would you say A lost team control if B1 knocks the ball from A1's hands not during a try? I know, I know, you're gonna say it's different because A1 did start his try, then I'm gonna ask why & you're gonna say because. Got anything better?

Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zebraman

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score 2 or 3 points by throwing or tapping the ball into his or her basket. Clearly the ball is in flight away from the shooter's own basket, in fact it is in flight towards his oppnent's basket, is it not? I request the court rule in my favor that this play does not meet the requirements as set forth and rule that team control has not ended. Nothing further, your honor. Motion denied with force. Note that the words you quoted say that it is an <b> attempt </b> to score into <b> his or her </B> own basket. 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. :-) Z

Ah...but your argument hinges on the fact that the try is in flight. I contend we only have a try if the ball is in flight towards the player's own basket. There is precedence for this in the case book.

Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

Nah, we just need a picture of Chuck, since he's been speechless since I challenged him on this.

Does anyone have a picture of Chuck? :D

My ruling on the legal issues...
 

My view is that block makes it certain that the ball isn't going in the bucket, so the try has ended before the ball leaves the shooter's hand. Hence no loss of team control, hence no backcourt violation.

Another way to look at it is that the ball hasn't been "released" as part of the try, but rather swatted away by the defender.

The comparison to a batted ball while dribbling seems quite a propos here...

Re: Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

No, no, no...that's not what the rule says. The ball doesn't even have to take flight to be considered a try. You can't possibly disagree with that. :p

There's definitely a try. The question is whether the shot being blocked and subsequently leaving the shooter's hand constitutes the ball being in flight.

Re: My ruling on the legal issues...
 

How can you possibly say that the try has ended when the ball hasn't left the shooter's hand? You have no way of knowing the try won't be good until it leaves his hand. You've never seen a shot blocked that didn't still leave the shooter's hand and had a chance to go in?

Point is, until it leaves his hand, you can't know that it's not going in, unless you have ESP! And when it leaves his hand, TC ends. :p

Re: Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

True. My lawyers were only taking issue with your point that my point was invalid due to the direction that the ball went. Or something like that. Can I have a sidebar? :-)

Z

any my two cents worth....if you have ESP don't even show up at the game, just mail in the results LOL :P

As I recall those case plays under 9-5 refer to how a dribble ends for the purposes of determining travel, and 9.5.1 is one of those ways - am I right? If so then I'm not sure 9-5-1 can be extended to include what constitues loss of team control. Would you say A lost team control if B1 knocks the ball from A1's hands not during a try? I know, I know, you're gonna say it's different because A1 did start his try, then I'm gonna ask why & you're gonna say because. Got anything better? [/B][/QUOTE]Nope,9.5.1 talks about a player blocking a shot(after it's left the shooter's hands),and the shooter getting the ball in the air and coming down with it. Ruling? Legal-can dribble,pass or shoot.Player and team control ended when shooter released the ball.Now,if you knock the ball out of the hands of a player holding the ball,ya definitely got a loss of player control BUT No loss of team control.So,the question is-"is it different on a shot-i.e.what caused the ball to be in flight?Attempted shot? I don't think that this one is definitevely covered,to be honest.I just liked Tony's reasoning.

Nah, we just need a picture of Chuck, since he's been speechless since I challenged him on this.

Does anyone have a picture of Chuck? :D [/B][/QUOTE]It;s a dirty job,but somebody's gotta do it!

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/Animal/photo7.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

why don't we just hit the bar? ;)

Nope,9.5.1 talks about a player blocking a shot(after it's left the shooter's hands),and the shooter getting the ball in the air and coming down with it. Ruling? Legal-can dribble,pass or shoot.Player and team control ended when shooter released the ball.Now,if you knock the ball out of the hands of a player holding the ball,ya definitely got a loss of player control BUT No loss of team control.So,the question is-"is it different on a shot-i.e.what caused the ball to be in flight?Attempted shot? I don't think that this one is definitevely covered,to be honest.I just liked Tony's reasoning. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, if the ball's already in flight we already lost team control, so it doesn't apply at all.

You just like Tony better, that's all! :sniff sniff:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

I'm not saying the ball needs to be in flight to have a try. I'm saying it can't be a try if the attempt is made at the opponent's basket - this counters your argument that the ball is in flight when B1 strips A1 before the shot gets off. The ball took flight towards the opponent's basket; ergo, ipso facto and zippity doo-dah we don't have a try. :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: Originally posted by Dan_ref Well, if the ball's already in flight we already lost team control, so it doesn't apply at all. You just like Tony better, that's all! :sniff sniff:

No,I like you(and Jim Nayzium) about the same!:D

I still gotta agree with Tony that the ball is in flight because of the blocked shot,too,and it's still a try also.Ergo,ipso facto and patrice lumumba,there's a loss of team control.

Re: Re: My ruling on the legal issues...
 

Whoa...I think I'm getting dizzy....

Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

Sorry. I had to drive my parents to the airport this morning. See? Sometimes I actually do have a life.

Anyway, here's my "contribution". 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.

Personally, I'm leaning to waving off the basket.

I'm shocked!

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/Animal/Shocked.jpg

Shocked,I tell ya!

Re: Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

Next time you speak to your parents tell them they raised a pretty bright son!

http://www.make-a-difference.org.uk/images/whizz.gif

Next time you speak to your parents tell them they raised a pretty bright son!

[/B][/QUOTE]Chuck's got a brother?

Re: Re: Re: Re: THis one will go at least 3 pages!
 

Please don't! That's why things really get messed up! :(

Quote:

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?

The try doesn't end until
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!! :D

I see that Rogaine's working out for ya...looks good!

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.

[/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.

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 <u>Nevadaref</u> in the online forum at http://www.officialforum.com

<B>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?</B>

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, <u>Mark Padgett</u> points out:

<b> 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.</b>

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, <u>BktBallRef</u>, 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?

<b>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.</b>

His commentary is that

<b> "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."</b>

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, <i>sui generis</i>, 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, <u>Dan_ref</u>, did bring up the matter of the direction the ball ended up going, to which <u>zebraman </u>replied:

<b>"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."</b>

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 <u>Chuck Elias</u>:

<b>"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."</b>

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.

Re: I love this question . . .
 

Unfortunately for you, you're not the Supreme Court, or even a member of the Supremes, so you are not the final answer. :p

BktBallRef: you're my favorite poster
 

I think you're taking it the wrong way. I know the Supremes when I hear them . . .

Nah! Didn't you see the :p 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?

Contibutor Chuck's contributions consistently consist of ca-ca! :D

Don't agree with your interpretation,either,Jeff.Gotta quote some rules if you wanna dazzle us(even if the rules aren't relevant).

Re: BktBallRef: you're my favorite poster
 

Tony's got a groupie!

Heeheeheehee....

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

Hey!! Whatta you mean A groupie? http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/madgo.gif

I have,...well,....dozens! :D

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

Chuck's got a million! I guess you could call 'em "groupies". They're sure in a group!

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'?

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

Paraphrasing, almost phrasing, Nevada . . .
 

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."

Nevadaref argues 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.

Would you disagree 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 and that, 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.

That is, the try ends when the blocking assures that it will not be released, THEN, with A1 still in player control of the ball, and thus with team control extant, the ball is dislodged.

Yes, it's a blocked shot. It's also backcourt, because something happens after the blocked shot that re-establishes team control. It's not a chicken and egg problem. the block comes first, just as possession (used to) come first in the adjucation of catching the tap.

Re: Almost paraphrasing, Nevada . . .is right
 

Jeff,
I don't agree with this. Team control is not re-established. It simply never ended. The something that happens after the block is the offensive team being the last to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt.
You did correctly assert the rest of my argument.
Tony and JR,
You guys have not picked apart my it's-not-a-throw reasoning yet. I would like to hear your thoughts, please.
PS Just got back from my first ever 11 year-old girls game. They sure are cute, but man do they travel a lot! Unfortunately, this tourney was stop-clock, so I refused to call most of them.

Re: Re: Almost paraphrasing, Nevada . . .is right
 

"It's not a throw?" I don't get it. What are you saying?