Game Winner?
 

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?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/4HMwDfaWG2o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

Is the "pass" deflected by the defender?

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

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?

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.

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

Peace

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.

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

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.

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.

Misty Water Color Memories ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm judging that as a try... ugly, but a try nonetheless.

Count that bucket.

Thought experiment:

A1 in transition throws the ball against the backboard to set up his own dunk. He throws it too high, however, and can't catch it. A2 fouls B2 while chasing the ball.

TC foul?

I have a try. Granted it isn't a very good try but that's what I'm judging it to be.

No violation -- however, I don't have a problem judging it a pass.

Your mileage may vary.

The white defender at the dividion line had to have deflected that ball. the pass was to the player on the right side of the court and the deflection made the ball go to the backboard. It bounced in the front court then one bounce in the backcourt picked up by white with the hail Mary. I don't believe this was a backcourt as white was the last to touch it before it went into the backcourt. That bucket should have counted.

I'm struggling to find the case play that states that any ball thrown at and hits your backboard is considered a shot. This is why I have no team control, and therefore, no backcourt in this situation.

You see white deflecting it in the video? A1 was not looking at the player down in the right corner so I don't think the was passing it there. I don't see this as a time to throw a no-look pass.

Boys basketball: Coosa knocks off Calhoun in overtime after fourth-quarter drama - Prep Central Online: Calhoun

From the article it seems like they changed the call from a backcourt violation to an inadvertant whistle!

My $0.02....

From the times on the clip it seems like there were about six seconds remaning at the start of the play and #3 released the ball with about four.

From what I can tell, when #3 jumped into the air he was intending to pass the ball to #1. Take a look at his head/eyes. He's looking straight ahead until he's in mid-air then he changes to look at the goal. At some point it appears he realized #1 was covered and then launched the ball towards the goal. Now, am I going to be able to tell all this while I'm on the court? Possibly. If the C was even with the play he might've seen it.

If I was on the court I most likely would've given #3 the benefit of the doubt and ruled he shot the ball, factoring in the time remaining and where he was when he released it.

Wow, that says they initially ruled the goal good and then changed it to an IW. So that means they ruled it a shot, and that the goal would have counted, but because they had an IW, the shot didn't count. Man, what a nightmare situation.

My thought is this:

Sometimes you can think too much.

A coach that understands
 

Quote from the article "“It was a crazy sequence at the end, but we put ourselves in that situation with mental mistakes all night,” said Calhoun coach Vince Layson. “When you make mistakes like we did tonight, teams like Coosa will beat you.”

Looks like a pass, then a shot, then a pass. Does hitting the back board on a pass nulify any backcourt violations?

The only case play related to this is the one where a player that has ended a dribble can get a new dribble by throwing the ball off the backboard. That implies that there is something going on there but it doesn't go so far as to declare that it is a try...it simply declares that it is legal for that player to dribble again.

It might be inferred from this case that it is to be treated as if it were a try as far as player control goes but it doesn't actually say that. It just says it is legal to dribble again. Even if it did, it may or may not mean that team control also ends. It may just be intended to be an exception to the dribble rules as they related to player control.

Until it is explicitly stated otherwise, the only pass that I'm treating anything like a shot is one that goes in...and that one is only treated as a shot in how many points are scored.

No.

Then I probably have a BC violation, as it does look in the end it was a pass.

THE END. Backcourt it is. The right thing happened even if it was for the wrong reason (IW).

If it hits the board, I'm judging it a try.

I think I'd have a try here.

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?

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

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.

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?

Camron,

I agree that officials should decide if it was a pass or throw. But, I think that they have to consider all factors (time left, distance of the throw, path of the throw) and err on the side of a shot. When this play comes up, I also wonder what would have happened if B1 jumped up above the rim and 1 ft. in front of the rim ( i.e. ball had a chance of going in ) and caught the PASS intended for A2? I can see that explanation - "Coach, when that left his hand, I was sure it was a pass"

What is the worst thing that can happen to you if you ALWAYS declare it a shot if it hits the backboard?

Teen Wolf sighting!

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?

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."

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.

True...but if you start telling people who say they will rule it a pass that they are wrong, you should probably have something other than common sense as your backing, don't you think?

So if that kid had hit the rim, would you have signaled for the shot clock operator to reset the shot clock? (assuming that there were more than 30 seconds left)

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.

In the first half A2 has 2 dunks on alley oops.

In the 2nd half A1 tries to throw a long alley-oop from 35ft, A2 slips and never jumps, the ball hits the backboard and bounds into the backcourt.

This is a shot?

9.5 SITUATION:

A1 dribbles and comes to a stop after which he/she throws the ball against: (a) his/her own backboard; (b) the opponent's backboard; or (c) an official and catches the ball after each.

RULING: Legal in (a); a team's own backboard is considered part of that team's "equipment" and may be used. In (b) and (c), A1 has violated; throwing the ball against an 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. (4-4-5; 4-15-1, 4-15-2; Fundamental 19)

Note that it doesn't state whether it's considered a try.

In a, can A1 dribble again?
Or, in my scenario (which has gone unanswered), if a foul is committed by a player on team A between the time A1 throws the ball towards his backboard and when it's retrieved (by anyone), is it a TC foul?

Very Interesting ...
 

Now this is a very interesting caseplay. Interesting because the word "try" is never mentioned.

I think that Camron mentioned that a player can pick up their dribble and throw the ball against the backboard (could be any where on the board), retrieve the ball, then can restart their dribble, shoot again, or pass without a violation.

I remember seeing Kobe do that in the not too distant past.

The rule implies that even though the intent is to maintain possession or restart the dribble. a ball hitting the backboard is considered a shot and not a pass (or self pass as some might say).

No back court violation, count the basket.

I'm not sure that's what the case implies, Jim...it seems like they would say that throwing it off the backboard is a try, but they don't say that at all. In my mind, this case play is more like throwing a pass off of a teammates back and then starting a new dribble. Not really sure that it applies to the video in the OP, but somebody asked for the case to be posted.

Team A commits a foul in the scrum for the rebound and loses as a result of free throws that would not have been awarded if it had been a TC foul.

Granted, no one would really consider it controversial since most people would also have considered it a shot. So even that's not a horrible outcome.

My take on the video isn't so much that I would have ruled it a pass (heat of the moment, it'd be a shot in my game too, I think), but when I saw backcourt was the ruling, I thought about it and saw the official's point. And it turned out he was RIGHT (remember, the article with quotes from players and coaches says it was a pass).

So while you may not love the call and would never, under any circumstances, make it yourself, the official was right here, even if he had to go obscure/nitpick/risk public ridicule (which we do nightly anyway) to be so.

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.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yabpY-YT46k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have watched it again and again, it was a deflected pass. White was last to touch in front court so no BC violation that basket should have counted.

Odog,

I'm not really dissing this official - his judgement, his call. I'm not really dissing any official that is wanting to to make a judgement each time as to whether it is a pass or shot. But, I don't see any problem with any official that wants to factor in his judgement criteria that the 60' throw is above the rim and is headed for the rim/backboard and considers it a shot if it hits the rim/backboard (wow, why would he be throwing that ball towards the rim/backboard with 5 seconds left kind of thing). You use your pass judgement on teammates location, eyes looking toward streaking teammate or eyes looking toward rim/backboard, shooting form, etc. while I am trying to make certain that he does not get fouled, that he gets it off before the horn, that he doesn't land on an opponent who has established LGP, that an opponent doesn't leap up there and swat it away on it's downward flight, and after all that, will consider it a shot if it hits the backboard.

All I'm asking is why can't I deem it a shot (in my judgement) if it hits the backboard without demanding that you do as well? In short, err on the side of a shot?

You can. Most people have. I would have too. But the bulk of this crowd also deems it absurd and 100% out of the question that this guy ruled pass. They won't even consider his ruling ... and it turns out he was right.

I'm open to both outcomes, and you are too, so we're on the same page. I only quoted you b/c I was trying to answer your query as to the worst outcome arising from always erring on the shot side. That's what I came up with. We're cool :cool:

So in this situation, you can either:

1. Deem the play a "pass" - a judgement that is majorly controversial and subject to a great deal of disagreeement as to whether it is supported by either the letter or the spirit of the rules.

2. Deem the play a "shot", which nobody will disagree with, and likely can be supported by either the letter or spirit of the rules - and chalk it up to another one of those crazy plays.

Seems to me, you can no-call the BC violation on this play and likely be supported by the rulebook, and with not one single person in the gym questioning the referees at all.

You can also whistle a player for 3 seconds after rebounding his own misses for 15 seconds with not one single person in the gym (except MAYBE a coach) questioning you at all either.

The will of the people is rarely the way in basketball.

But I know that's not your point. You laid out the scenario perfectly, and I would take the easier road as well.

Because of the rule defining what a shot is. A shot isn't defined as a ball that hits the backboard. It is defined as an attempt to throw the ball into the basket. Using the backboard as the factor to determine if it is a shot or not, as suggested by many, is just not supported by any rule or case play.

Uhhh ... you are using a quote from a newspaper article about the game to determine that it was indeed a pass? Really???

Hey, he talked to the players and the coaches. All you have is a kid firing a 100 mph missile into the bottom of the backboard from 50 feet out with 4 seconds left to determine that it was indeed a shot.

So now you're believing what a sports reporter says? There were no players or coaches saying it was a pass in that article.

Yes, an attempt to throw in the basket (in the official's judgement).

Using the backboard is not THE factor but a factor along with everything else. Judgement is a key part of the rule that you quote. My judgement is that on a 60' throw headed toward the basket in the last seconds of a period and it hits the backboard/rim OR misses the backboard by 1" IS A SHOT. My criteria. And, I understand maybe not your's?

Speaking of which, what is your criteria for your judgement?

This is a half court 1 handed pass to the player cutting down the left side of the lane. It was off target, but it in no way looks like a shot to me. Just my opinion. Now if it is judged to be a pass, is this a backcourt?

Using your opinion, the correct call is backcourt. During the huddle, if the trail indicated that in his opinion the throw was a pass, then let's put the .5 back on the clock and give the ball to the OTHER team. The crew didn't do that.

By the way, the first throw looks a lot more like a shot to me than the second one that went in. As you say - my opinion.

It would be interesting to see if the C was signaling a 3 point shot. You can't really tell from the video. If he was signaling a 3 attempt that sort of answers the question.
As officials, is it a duty to know what the play is going to be? Do we know for certain, as someone mentioned, that he was supposed to pass to the player cutting down the left side? Or pass it up the line to the player who ended up covered?
I see a player leave his feet and launch the ball towards the ball from half court are towards the goal. We have already determined there is no rule we can cite to say this is a shot attempt or this is a pass attempt. Since we are dealing with judgement, go with the easiest option. Is it easier to believe this was a shot attempt or some botched play with an errant pass?

And whoever asked why a kid would shoot a ball from mid court with that much time left made me laugh. Much like women, I have given up trying to figure out why teenagers do what they do and just go with it!:)

Ummm. it was a pass. It just got deflected. It is in the video. No B/C basket is good.