Miami at Wake Forest 3pt play
 

JetMetFan,
Please post the video of this play at 7:47 of the second half.

I know I'm not JetMet, but I think this'll do ;)

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nP1hyf9zAaA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

At this level this is the expected call.

Thank you, APG. That is the play that I wished to have posted for the forum members to see as we have discussed this situation before and the consensus was that the goal cannot count.

Can you post the other thread? I would like to read a little more on exactly why this would not count.

How can it count? He got fouled, which caused him to lose the ball on the way up, which ended the try. He subsequently caught the ball and laid it in.

Agreed. If another player had caught the "pass" then it clearlyu wouldn't couont; this was a "self pass" so also shouldn't count.

Similar to the case play where a dunker is allowed to carry the ball into the "cylinder" but if he loses contact with the ball and then re-touches it, it's BI.

Eh, I'm not really bothered by it either way.

I'm not sure sure how this is different than the player who's fouled in the act of shooting which causes him to bobble the ball and continues the act of shooting. My gut feeling is to count the basket. Not because it's "expected" at this level, because I think it's the right call. I may be wrong.

I would encourage you to consult the definition of a "try." The rules are more reliable than your gut.

I agree that by rule the ball becomes dead when he catches the "self-pass" (scare quotes to indicate that by definition there's no such thing).

I also agree that at this level counting the bucket is the expected call, and that as a game management decision this worked out well.

I wonder what happened when the play was reviewed with the supervisor. :)

Maven,

Had he only bobbled the ball while he was in the air, would you have counted the basket?

"Good call fellas"

NCAA supervisors do not want this shot waved off.

Get Your Popcorn Here ...
 

The plot thickens.

I answer your question with a question: in your situation, is there anything like a foul that would have otherwise caused the ball to become dead?

Who are you, Socrates? :) I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm saying the same play occured as in the video except that he only bobbles the ball while he's in the air.

The foul on the shooter does not cause the ball to become dead. I think you would agree. Thus, the only remaining decision is whether the shooter started a second act of shooting. I don't think so.