Game Winner?

[refiator]

Kaelen Riley CHS vs Coosa - YouTube

My understanding is that the officials disallowed the basket. They ruled the first shot a pass, and a backcourt violation killed the shot. Thoughts?

[bainsey]

If I have my facts straight, any "pass" that hits your backboard is considered a shot. Shot > no team control > ball retrieved in the backcourt > legal.

[BktBallRef]

Is the "pass" deflected by the defender?

[refiator]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If I have my facts straight, any "pass" that hits your backboard is considered a shot. Shot > no team control > ball retrieved in the backcourt > legal.

That is certainly true in my book. And no, there was no deflection after the "pass"......
Tough call to take the basket away......

[ODog]

I'm OK with the call. I agree it was a pass (albeit a terrible one, though not as bad as it would've been as a shot). It barely hit the bottom of the backboard and there was a teammate on the left w/in a few feet who was likely the intended target.

Knowing the score would help. If they're down 2 or less, it lends more credence to the "pass" theory.

Down 3 obv. helps the "shot" crowd.

I think either side has a case. Judgment call and I've got no prob. with the judgment.

Did everyone else have no volume on this?

[APG]

If I have an untouched thrown ball that hits the backboard or rim, I'm judging it to be a try...then judging everything else accordingly.

[JRutledge]

I would call this a try. Too much to guess otherwise.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If I have my facts straight, any "pass" that hits your backboard is considered a shot. Shot > no team control > ball retrieved in the backcourt > legal.

Not true. While there are situations that seem to imply that, there is no such rule that states that it is so.

If it was a pass, even a bad one, there was no loss of team control and the backcourt violation was correct.

There was clearly plenty of time to get the ball into the frontcourt for a better shot and there was no reason for that guy to be shooting when he had open teammates farther down the court. He released it as a pass so it was a pass.

That kinds of situation is what we get paid for and we have to judge it for what it was, not what we can default to in order to avoid making a tough call. If he was fouled at that moment and the video cut off with the ball in mid-flight I'd bet that a large majority of people wouldn't even consider that it was a shot.

[Rego130]

It doesn't appear they ever established player and team control in the frontcourt. The player threw it from the backcourt.

[ODog]

You don't need player control in the frontcourt.

Though that is the way the rule is worded, that's not what the NFHS means, and you can see that in their Backcourt case plays.

You need player control to have been established inbounds and a ball with frontcourt status. They really need to reword the rule. Very poorly done.

[Terrapins Fan]

If the first "Pass" had gone in would it have counted as a 3 point "Shot"?

Yes.

I've got no BC.

BTW, we are all always being filmed.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

If the first "Pass" had gone in would it have counted as a 3 point "Shot"?

Not back when the NFHS first adapted the three point shot. If, in the judgment of the official, it was indeed a "pass", then it would have counted as only two points. I don't recall that rule, or interpretation, lasting very long.

[JugglingReferee]

I think I'm counting that one.

I forwarded the clip to a friend and he says BC violation.

Either way, it was a very poor pass attempt. And it was a very poor shot attempt.

I think a question to ask is, "does intent have any factor in our ruling", or "does the the mere fact that it hit the backboard make it a shot"?

I think we give the benefit of the doubt and hammer it home.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

If the first "Pass" had gone in would it have counted as a 3 point "Shot"?

Yes.

I've got no BC.

BTW, we are all always being filmed.

No. It isn't. I counts as 3 points but no where does it say it is a "shot" or "try".

Rule 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.

The fact that they list it as a 3rd option in addition to a try or tap implies that it is not actually a try or a tap. If it was, they would have said that a successful thrown ball is a try and therefore 3 points. But, they don't. It is just declared directly as 3 points without making it a try so none of the other element that related to be being a try come into play.

[refiator]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I think I'm counting that one.

I forwarded the clip to a friend and he says BC violation.

Either way, it was a very poor pass attempt. And it was a very poor shot attempt.

I think a question to ask is, "does intent have any factor in our ruling", or "does the the mere fact that it hit the backboard make it a shot"?

I think we give the benefit of the doubt and hammer it home.

That's pretty much where I am. This is a great play for discussion. I would have a hard time disallowing this basket and assuming he was passing the ball, especially since the clock was winding down.