Miami at Wake Forest 3pt play

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Any HS ref who attended a college camp would get an earful if he waved off a bobble on the way up as the end of the try. In a HS game if you wave it off you can justify it by rule. In a HS game if you score the basket I don't think anybody would say a word.

But if you are a HS ref auditioning for a college job you're best served by counting the basket as it would be the expected call.

If you lived here, you cannot get away with that and they will not support you by rule either.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you saying a try ends because the ball is knocked out of his hands?

Peace

That's what I'm saying.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That's what I'm saying.

You have the right to say that, but that is very flawed logic in my mind. If he came back to the floor with the ball or the ball hit something then maybe I would kind of agree with your point. No way a simple bobble on a fouled player is going to end a shot while the player is in the air the entire time.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have the right to say that, but that is very flawed logic in my mind. If he came back to the floor with the ball or the ball hit something then maybe I would kind of agree with your point. No way a simple bobble on a fouled player is going to end a shot while the player is in the air the entire time.

Peace

This is not a simple bobble. The ball is clear of his hand six inches. What if it had hit something? That doesn't end the try. But if had it hit the board and then been tapped in by the airborne player that would be the same as this play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not a simple bobble. The ball is clear of his hand six inches. What if it had hit something? That doesn't end the try. But if had it hit the board and then been tapped in by the airborne player that would be the same as this play.

You're really stretching things here.

No matter what you say it's not gonna change what is "expected" at many levels and many locales.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not a simple bobble. The ball is clear of his hand six inches. What if it had hit something? That doesn't end the try. But if had it hit the board and then been tapped in by the airborne player that would be the same as this play.

So what if the ball was out his hands 4 inches? What about 5 1/2 inches?

And I already did say if it hits something maybe then you can make a case the try has clearly ended, but it would depend on what it hit and who it hit. If it hit a the backboard I can see that being the case. If it hit an opponent that was defending the play, then no.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No matter what you say it's not gonna change what is "expected" at many levels and many locales.

And it seems to be the case that expectations and the rule book are sometimes at right angles to each other. If the NCAA rule and the NFHS rule are the same on this, then this is a good example. If everybody is on the same page, fine, I have no problem with it, but if that's the way they want it, this rule, like others, should be rewritten.


"In the case of a pretty play that the fans like, the official shall ignore whatever is necessary (traveling, end of try, etc.) and count the basket."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...

"In the case of a pretty play that the fans coaches like, the official shall ignore whatever is necessary (traveling, end of try, etc.) and count the basket."

Wrong target audience. And don't forget who writes the rules. And don't forget who would complain to supervisors and commissioners if they didn't like how officials are handling the play.

[JRutledge]

Who cares if the NF or the NCAA are on the same page? They are not on the same page with a lot of things and basketball is not like other sports where there are drastic differences.

And I am not seeing anything that says this would not apply under any rules set. A bobble does not end a shot for an airborne shooter.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who cares if the NF or the NCAA are on the same page? They are not on the same page with a lot of things and basketball is not like other sports where there are drastic differences.

And I am not seeing anything that says this would not apply under any rules set. A bobble does not end a shot for an airborne shooter.

Peace

I have not seen anything from the NCAA which says the try would end on a bobble.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have not seen anything from the NCAA which says the try would end on a bobble.

I think it could end but it might not. This is going to be a judgement call. I think it really depends on how far away it gets and if is the same general effort to shoot or if it is an entirely new effort.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who cares if the NF or the NCAA are on the same page?

I meant all parties involved in a single game (coaches, players, officials) on the same page.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A bobble does not end a shot for an airborne shooter.

A bobble does not end the act of shooting for an airborne shooter.

If the contact was after the bobble he would still get two shots.

4-41-4: The try ends when......it is certain the throw is unsuccessful.


If it doesn't get touched again, the throw in the OP is unsuccessful. And if you say for some reason that this doesn't apply in this case, why would it change if the ball hit the board, or even the rim?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I meant all parties involved in a single game (coaches, players, officials) on the same page.

When does that ever happen?

Originally Posted by just another ref

A bobble does not end the act of shooting for an airborne shooter.

If the contact was after the bobble he would still get two shots.

4-41-4: The try ends when......it is certain the throw is unsuccessful.


If it doesn't get touched again, the throw in the OP is unsuccessful. And if you say for some reason that this doesn't apply in this case, why would it change if the ball hit the board, or even the rim?

Well most rules have an interpretation from an official body suggesting how rules in unusual situations should be officiated. Now if you have an interpretation that supports your point of view, then so be it. But you don't have one so we could debate this aspect all day, but it is not going to change anything. Call it how you see it, but to me this is part of the shot and would count at both the NCAA or NF levels that I work. I cannot imagine calling it any other way.

Peace