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.

If you want to talk about the "act of shooting," it ends when the ball is in the air. You've referred to a bobble, which clearly involves the ball in the air. That would mark the end of the "first" act of shooting.

The "first" try ends when it is "certain the throw is unsuccessful." When the player regains control of the "bobbled" ball, it is certain that the "first" throw is unsuccessful. The ball is then dead due to the foul.

There is no "second" try or act of shooting, unless you count the one with a dead ball.

BTW, I fully accept BNR's view that at this level, the rule should be ignored. That does not mean that we all have misinterpreted the rule. :)

Rational Explanation ...
 

Good explanation. Previous to this post, I probably would have have counted the basket.

Questions: "NFHS 4-41: The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight." Does the statement "clearly in flight" also refer to a bobble? Is a bobble "clearly" a ball in flight? What if, during a continuous motion situation, the ball handler, after getting fouled, and becoming an airborne shooter, switches the ball from one hand, to the other, with, at some point, the ball being airborne between the two hands?

This should not have counted at any level IMO.

Some interpreters see NFHS 4-41-1: "The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter," (italics added) when considered with 4-1-2 . . ."The airborne shooterr is considered to be in the act of shooting." to mean that even when the shooter's hand has momentarily lost contact with the ball, the act of shooting is continued until the shooter is no longer airborne.
It's a simplistic view, used to validate the reasoning that on such a play, the basket should count.

Does this mean (when these two things are taken together), the "act of shooting" equals "try" or "tap"? I thought they were separate?

That is the simplistic inference of such an interpretation. Although, our discussions, here, indicate a contrary opinion.

While I understand that, I sure do like Walter's rant in the Big Lebowski about the rules.

My advice to anybody who has this in a college try out camp: count the basket. College mentality is that this is a great athletic and strong play by A1 and he is going to get rewarded for playing through the foul.

Serious question, would you count it at the HS level?

Just as importantly college coaches want this basket counted.

And they write the rules.

NBA's reasoning as well for counting the basket and I tend to agree with both of their reasoning

Yes. In a heartbeat.

Calling under NCAA rules in football and trying to keep up with the variety of philosophies that sometimes conflict directly with the rules, I certainly get it.

I know you do. :)

It's some other folks here who only look at the black and white of the rule book and think the game is being damaged if certain areas or "levels" have practical applications that don't always stick to the exact letter of the law.

Yes I would and I'm sure I've done so in the past.

Thanks.

There are times in basketball I still struggle to find what the proper mix of philosophy and rulebook application is. I can't say I've seen a play like this yet but I have a feeling if I have, I would have wiped the shot

Instead of the play in the video think about this play:

2 football player sized big men in the post. A1 has the ball below his waist and starts to raise it while elevating for his try attempt. B1 whacks his wrists, A1 bobbles basketball, A1 gathers it back in around chest level and finishes successful try.

Can you imagine explaining to A1's coach why you are awarding 2 shots instead of going with an "And 1"?

If you want to see heads explode, let's talk about holding a whistle on a foul to ensure that the foul is put on the shot attempt rather than rushing in like the cavalry to tell everyone it was "before the shot".

OK I have done that before.

Agree wholeheartedly.

I'm counting that basket at any level I work.

Even worse is the people who bring those practical applications from another "level" and apply them during a different game. And their excuse is "well, in my XYZ games, that's the way we call it".

As far as the OP, I would count the basket even in a HS game. That's just a flat out strong athletic move and should not be taken away from the shooter.

Thinking out loud here, he's fouled, catches ball and comes to a jump stop...from that position he shoots again. Count it?

Hmmmm...making my head hurt now, but I think I probably would not in this scenario. Depends on the timing/tempo of the whistle.

This was brought up this weekend during film study at a camp while discussing continuous motion. Person running the study says a jump stop ends the try.

I haven't done any research yet to verify.

Was this a college-level film study? I'm trying to reconcile these two posts.

One comment was made back in February referencing only this play, the other was made after this weekend and about a different aspect of continuous motion.

Peace

See JRut's response. 2 different plays.

When the ball is caught out of the air after the contact, how is it continuous motion?

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

Peace

Because:

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

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

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. :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

When does that ever happen?

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