Game Winner?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sometimes you can think too much.

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Brad

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

So if I understand you, this should be a shot based on the fact that it hit the backboard? Do you have a rule or case play that backs your intrp here? Or are you simply saying that your judgement of intent here is more valid than others who say they would judge it a pass?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So if I understand you, this should be a shot based on the fact that it hit the backboard? Do you have a rule or case play that backs your intrp here? Or are you simply saying that your judgement of intent here is more valid than others who say they would judge it a pass?

No, I'm saying that it is a shot unless you are CERTAIN that it isn't because that is what common-sense dictates is the obvious call.

How can it be a pass? Do most passes from the backcourt hit the backboard in your games?

I'm saying that you CANNOT judge intent and because you cannot judge intent, you must determine that this is a shot. You can't say, "Well, I think it was more of a crappy pass than a crappy shot."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Brad

How can it be a pass? Do most passes from the backcourt hit the backboard in your games?

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.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

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

Originally Posted by just another ref

One question is about as useful here as the other.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

I've seen a D1 player toss the ball full court on a shot attempt with 10 seconds left in the half.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

I've seen a D1 player toss the ball full court on a shot attempt with 10 seconds left in the half.

The point was that you couldn't judge what it was based on the quality of the act.

Do players shoot terrible shots when adequate time remains to do better?

Do players throw errant passes which may accidentally hit the backboard, or even the rim?

The answer is yes to both.

[SAJ]

Originally Posted by APG

I've seen a D1 player toss the ball full court on a shot attempt with 10 seconds left in the half.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Brad

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

What he said. Can't believe this made 3 pages.

[Adam]

Finally watched the video. Frankly, I don't think I could tell just by watching it what he was doing, so I'd rule it a shot.

I don't, however, agree that it's a shot simply because it hit the backboard.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Brad

Pretty much this.

A backcourt violation on this sequence of plays is awful.

Why do some officials come up with the most contrived rulings on plays that should just be straight-forward and obvious?

How can an official determine that the initial throw from the backcourt was a crappy pass vs a crappy shot? He can't.

Stop trying to be judges of intent and simply judge what happened.

When in doubt, make the obvious call.

A backcourt here isn't obvious — it is nit-picky, over-thinking, and wrong.

Contrived ruling? To say he was shooting is what is contrived. That ball left his hands as a pass. He was trying to hit his player cutting in from the left side. He may have failed at it but that is what he was doing. It just wouldn't make any sense for him to shoot like that at that time. To say he was shooting just because the bad pass just happened to hit the backboard is nothing more than avoiding having to make a decision.

Stop judging intent? We have to do that all the time so why should this be any different? A player puts up an air ball and then catches it. You have to decide if it was a try or not...what was the player's intent. A player is fouled. You must decide shooting or not...what were they intending to do.

If you saw that same play but the thrower was fouled and the ball was knocked away as it was released, would you have put the player on the line for 3 shots? You must decide what he was trying to do...what did he intend to do??? Even if the ball wasn't knocked away, would you award 3 shots? What if it fell 6 inches short and missed the board, does that make it not a shot? If so, does that mean a try has to hit something to be a try?

If somone jumped up and caught that ball before it hit the backboard, would you have called offensive goaltending?

[#olderthanilook]

Teen Wolf sighting!

[APG]

If I had to venture a guess, the overwhelming majority of officials would rule that a try.

Just my simple opinion, but if you rule that to be a pass, you'd just be adding s*** into your game.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by APG

If I had to venture a guess, the overwhelming majority of officials would rule that a try.

Just my simple opinion, but if you rule that to be a pass, you'd just be adding s*** into your game.

Ok, why?

Why are we all ruling it a try?

And if your answer is because it hit the rim, then what rule are you using to back that up?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

And if your answer is because it hit the rim, then what rule are you using to back that up?

Why do you have to have a rule to back up a shot attempt? It's the rule regarding a try for goal. What more is there to it than that?

We don't need a case play or rule for every single permutation of a play that could happen on the court.