And btw, 4-41-2 clearly states that it is a judgement by the official whether a heave like that is a try for goal or not. So we do have to judge what was going on there.

There isn't backing in the rule book for every minute thing. Just like my post about the Indiana-Michigan play where someone mentioned it should be called a travel. Is it, under microscopic examination, by rule, by the book, a travel? Maybe. But it's a bad call on that play. It's not setting aside a rule, it's simply interpretation and adjudication of the rules.

Remember, it's the art of officiating — not the science.

Yes, I would have. But he would also not have launched that shot with more than 30 seconds left.

Then I will adjust my comments to say, "You should judge this a try."

Problem is ... often when someone here says, "in my opinion ..." you say, "oh yeah - what rule says that" I'm expecting the next one to be:

Ref: "I ruled blue ball as I felt it went off Red's leg"
You: "What rule says that it went off Red's leg?"

How can it be a shot? Do most varsity players take this kind of heave with 4 seconds still on the clock in your games?

One question is about as useful here as the other.

Yes. High school players are not known for their amazing clock management.

I suppose.

I'm just saying that you really have to go through mental hoops to rule this a pass in order to make the most unusual call on this play that you could come up with.

Really?

It would be more accurate to say that often when someone on here states categorically that someone is wrong on something that is purely a judgement call ( which is exactly what has taken place in this thread), then I ask for a rule backing that will prove that poster correct and the other wrong.

But you go ahead and keep jumping to conclusions.

I cannot imagine at ANY time, that I could see a baseball throw from behind half-court, see it hit the backboard and decide it MUST be a pass. I don't think any of the "that was a shot" crowd is saying EVERYTHING that hits the backboard is a shot... they are saying that unless you KNOW it's a pass, then it's not a pass.

Have you ever seen a guy go up for an alley-oop, and then the receiver realizes it's going in and pulls his hands back - and it goes in. Are you going to rule that a shot?

No offense, but exactly what conclusion did I jump to? What I said was that you tend to do what I said often - to the point that I almost expect the next time to be as far fetched as what I posted. I'm not even attacking you here - I'm just saying that it seems to me your automatic self-defense mechanism when someone expresses an opinion you disagree with is "Oh yeah, show me the rule." It is wearying. Instead of "Show me the rule," perhaps a dose of the opposite would balance things out... you show someone else a rule that contradicts what they said.

So ... exactly what did I jump to?

I just went back to the video. I was thinking --- ok, some guys on here I know not to be trolls or idiots keep calling this a pass... what might I be missing.

I guess the options here are

A) ill-timed and unnecessarily long shot that misses by a foot or so... and
B) baseball pass that misses by about 15 feet.

I'm sorry guys. But I can't even remotely see that this might be a pass. And if we make it more iffy - more in doubt - as a few guys here have said... you've got to KNOW it's a pass to rule pass over shot here. This one's not close. Again, I can't believe this went on for this many pages. Truly.

Self defense mechanism? Did someone attack me? Afaik, I never even stated an opinion on this play...but a couple of other people stated categorically that people who had a different take on the play were wrong...so yes, I asked for a rule to back those statements up. Specifically questioning the statement that we should stop trying to judge "intent" when the rule tells we do judge that on a play like this.

Got some threads where I have been unreasonable about the asking for rules basis? Let me know what they are so I can go back and check them out. But I don't think you will find any.

I'd claim the opposite...that you MUST KNOW it is a shot to call it a shot. A shot, by rule, is defined by intent. What did the player intend to do? By rule, you must decide. By rule, hitting the board or not hitting the board has nothing to do with it being a try.

What if it missed the board by 1/2"? Does that make what was otherwise the same throw no longer a try? What about 1/4"? What if it grazed the edge? What rule tells you the so?

Also, your options don't match the video....no one shoots like that with time remaining. And It wasn't long by a foot or two. It was short by a LOT more than that...t would have needed to be a lot longer/higher to both clear the rim and have a chance to go in.

Where's Nevadaref When You Really Need Him ???
 

We've had this discussion before. Can anybody search and find the thread? I've tried without success.

Can anybody post this? Please.

4.15.4 SITUATION C:

After dribbling and coming to a stop, A1 throws the ball: (a) against the opponent's backboard and catches the rebound; (b) against an *official, immediately recovers the ball and dribbles again; or (c) against his/her own backboard in an attempt to score (try), catches the rebound and dribbles again.

RULING: A1 has violated in both (a) and (b). Throwing the ball against the opponent's backboard or an *official constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is first to touch the ball after it strikes the official or the board. In (c), the action is legal. Once the ball is released on the try, there is no player or team control, therefore, A1 can recover the rebound and begin a dribble.

Not Relevant ...
 

Thanks. But this doesn't help because the caseplay calls it a try from the get go.

Some of us want to know if any ball thrown at one's own backboard is always considered a try.