Which Side of the Lane Line?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have had several games with the last shot was the game decider made or missed, I have yet to have such a request. The situation that happened over 10 years ago was after a timeout and in the middle of the game in the first half.

What does the time of the game, or the score of the game (other than to underscore the importance of this situation), or the fact that this happened ten years ago (other than to underscore the rarity of this situation), have to do with the question at hand?

Should a coach have a right, by rule, to select which side of the lane he wants the throwin to occur after a timeout after a made basket?

Also, from a mechanics perspective, with no request for a certain spot; after a made basket, when time out is requested, and granted, with the ball still on the floor, after the timeout should officials inbound it for convenience sake, or should they inbound it as they were set up before the time out request (if the new trail was tableside, he should stay tableside after the timeout)?

I've been posting all day, so I might as well give an opinion: I like the later, with no rule change allowing the coach to select a side.

Are my opinions correct by rule, or by mechanic? I don't know, but that's the way I would like see this issue resolved.

In real game, like a few Forum members have already stated, I would probably allow the coach's request if it were made before one of the officials had already "marked" a spot by his location with the ball.

After the sport is "marked", I don't want to get involved with dueling coaches, "But your partner was standing over there (pointing) with the ball".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

And I've never had a coach request that a player be allowed to wear gloves, but when I do, the NFHS tells me how to handle it.

Believe it, or not, I did, only once, have to deal with shoes that light up. I'm probably the only Forum member to deal with this very rare issue. Do I get a prize?

OK and your point is what? This is not about what has been addressed more. I am sure someone tried to use gloves and that needed to be addressed as there was no such rule covering gloves. Where someone has the ball put in play is not a big deal, it is not something specific.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What does the time of the game, or the score of the game (other than to underscore the importance of this situation), or the fact that this happened ten years ago (other than to underscore the rarity of this situation), have to do with the question at hand?

Should a coach have a right, by rule, to select which side of the lane he wants the throwin to occur after a timeout after a made basket?

Also, from a mechanics perspective, with no request for a certain spot; after a made basket, when time out is requested, and granted, with the ball still on the floor, after the timeout should officials inbound it for convenience sake, or should they inbound it as they were set up before the time out request (if the new trail was tableside, then, should he stay tableside after the timeout)?

I've been posting all day, so I might as well give an opinion: I like the later, with no rule change allowing the coach to select a side.

Are my opinions correct by rule, or by mechanic? I don't know, but that's the way I would like see this issue resolved.

In real game, like a few Forum members have already stated, I would probably allow the coach's request if it were made before one of the officials had already "marked" a spot by his location with the ball.

Once again, I do not ever see the request. If there is one, I will cross that bridge when I get to it. But until then, I am not asking or doing anything different. I will put the ball on the side that I am after a basket. And I am certainly not going to change after an immediate stoppage like a substitution. If the NF or the IHSA wants to address this and come up with a policy, I will follow. But to me there are some things we worry about that make no difference and this to me is one of those things. And unlike you, we work 3 person all the time for varsity games. This would be more than just a slight movement.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... after a made basket, when time out is requested, and granted, with the ball still on the floor, after the timeout should officials inbound it for convenience sake, or should they inbound it as they were set up before the time out request (if the new trail was tableside, he should stay tableside after the timeout)? ... I like the later, with no rule change allowing the coach to select a side.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will put the ball on the side that I am after a basket.

We agree in theory.

A coach should not have a right, by rule, to select which side of the lane he wants the throwin to occur after a timeout after a made basket.

I'm just not sure if everybody else agrees with us. Maybe they do on a written test, but will they agree with us in a real game situation? We've seen some differing opinions, by some very knowledgeable basketball officials, in this thread. A little guidance from the NFHS would clear this up for everybody. I'm a big fan of consistency.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... and your point is what?

C'mon. My point isn't that hard to see, but I'll spell it out.

In the past, the NFHS has shown a willingness to rule on situations that very rarely occur (lighted shoes), so the infrequency of this situation (selecting which side of the lane) should not have any impact on the willingness of the NFHS to rule on this situation, or to not rule on this situation. Other factors should come into play, not just the frequency, or infrequency, of the situation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

C'mon. My point isn't that hard to see, but I'll spell it out.

In the past, the NFHS has shown a willingness to rule on situations that very rarely occur (lighted shoes), so the infrequency of this situation (selecting which side of the lane) should not have any impact on the willingness of the NFHS to rule on this situation, or to not rule on this situation. Other factors should come into play, not just the frequency, or infrequency, of the situation.

Your point is very hard to see when you are talking about something that has nothing to do with the original topic. This is not about what uniforms are being worn, this is about a request that could theoretically happen but almost never does (based on just the conversations here). We know that players attempt to wear all kinds of stuff and usually will claim no one told them it was illegal before. Those are also likely safety or even issues of uniformity. Every single game I have to deal with a uniform issue of either a player wearing something that does not fit the current rules or does not fit specifications. Still waiting for the one game a coach makes a request to where I give them the ball or my partners. But like other things we do, this is cultural. Maybe you and others have coaches that cannot design plays to go to either side. But apparently this is not an issue where I live as players can even run to the other side or they flip the movement. Either way so rare I never hear anyone talk about this and we seem to have coaches that are OK with where we put the ball. And once again, if you feel the need to accommodate such a request, that is on you. I am not going to criticize you for doing that, I just know what I am going to do or not do.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We agree in theory. A coach should not have a right, by rule, to select which side of the lane he wants the throwin to occur after a timeout after a made basket.

I'm just not sure if everybody else agrees with us. Maybe they do on a written test, but will they agree with us in a real game situation? We've seen some differing opinions, by some very knowledgeable basketball officials, in this thread.

Examples:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I always allow them to start where they wish.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

the general consensus is to move.

(Always listen to bob.)

Originally Posted by bainsey

I've never had a player ask to move to the other side, but he's entitled, under the rules.

Originally Posted by Rich

I will move, every time.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Coaches appreciate this courtesy and it helps to build positive rapport.

Originally Posted by jpgc99

If the player wants the ball on the other side of the basket, move over there and administer the throw.

A drum roll please:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A little guidance from the NFHS would clear this up for everybody. I'm a big fan of consistency.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Your point is very hard to see when you are talking about something that has nothing to do with the original topic. This is not about what uniforms are being worn ...

It's not about lighted shoes. Open up your horizons (sometimes you remind me of me, tunnel vision, no offense). In the past, the NFHS has shown a willingness to rule on situations that very rarely occur. Now pick your favorite infrequent topic, it doesn't have to be about about a uniform, or equipment issue. Ten second limit on a free throws? Players standing on the shoulders of teammates? Players along a sideline crowded together passing the ball back and forth to each other? Just because it's infrequent doesn't automatically mean that the NFHS is unwilling to deal with the issue.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...This would be more than just a slight movement.

Peace

I work all 3-man, it's still just a slight adjustment.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I work all 3-man, it's still just a slight adjustment.

I understand, just do not get the request. And do not see why it matters if you can coach.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's not about lighted shoes. Open up your horizons (sometimes you remind me of me, tunnel vision, no offense).

I am going to assume that we deal with real basketball compared to where you live. Those kind of antics would get you ridiculed here. We are a real basketball state with real basketball players. The most things we have to deal with is someone wearing the wrong color for their sleeves. It has nothing to do with tunnel vision, it has to do with what real basketball players and coaches would stand for. Gloves?? This is not football or baseball.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In the past, the NFHS has shown a willingness to rule on situations that very rarely occur. Now pick your favorite infrequent topic, it doesn't have to be about about a uniform, or equipment issue. Ten second limit on a free throws? Players standing on the shoulders of teammates? Players along a sideline crowded together passing the ball back and forth to each other? Just because it's infrequent doesn't automatically mean that the NFHS is unwilling to deal with the issue.

OK and none of this has anything to do with where we put the ball on a throw-in.

And you have a reading problem, I did not say the NF should not or would not address this, but they haven't at this point or we would not be talking about this in complete hypotheticals. And the NF or even my state has not addressed this IMO because it has not been an issue obviously. IF it was an issue, I am sure it would be addressed. Maybe one day they will address this, but I cannot see why. Again I think a good coach does not need the ball to be on one side of the lane to coach his/her throw-in set. Just like they do when the ball is on the other side of the court and the direction is different. What are coaches going to do when they do not have the right to "run the end line?" What are they going to do when it is a spot throw-in? I have never seen a good coach had difficulty teaching something this simple.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you have a reading problem ...

Why haven't you figured out that I agree with almost everything that you say? Maybe tunnel vision?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... after a made basket, when time out is requested, and granted, with the ball still on the floor, after the timeout should officials inbound it for convenience sake, or should they inbound it as they were set up before the time out request (if the new trail was tableside, he should stay tableside after the timeout)? ... I like the later, with no rule change allowing the coach to select a side.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A coach should not have a right, by rule, to select which side of the lane he wants the throwin to occur after a timeout after a made basket.

It's not about lighted shoes. It's not about gloves. It's not about headbands with extensions. And it's no longer about which side of the lane to put the ball in play.

It's about your insistence that the NFHS would not confider a rule change (any rule change, not only equipment, or which side of the lane to put the ball in play) due to it's infrequency. I can (and already have) came up with NFHS rule situations that we seldom, if ever, see in a real game, in either Illinois, or Connecticut.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is an extremely rare request. Most officials probably never get this request and when they do, it is confusing ... And as a clinician with my state, this is never discussed because I doubt anyone gets this request.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The request is so rare, I bet no one even thinks about this. Why come up with a policy that never is an issue?

Forget lighted shoes. Forget gloves. Forgot headbands with extensions. Forget which side of the lane. Look at the big picture, breaking away from that tunnel vision. It's my opinion (based on some factual examples of rules that we very rarely see) that the NFHS will consider a rule change on several factors and will not automatically not consider a rule change just because it only happens only once in a blue moon. They might consider various factors like impact on the game, costs, impact on existing rules, unintended consequences, simplicity of enforcement, integrity of the game, advantage, disadvantage, improving the game, etc., but they won't automatically reject a rule change just because it only happens infrequently. Now if it never happens, and the NFHS believes that it never will happen, then I agree with you, that it wouldn't be considered, but the topic of this thread does happen, very rarely, almost never, but not never.

Will the NFHS consider a rule change if the situation happens only once, or twice, over several years? I'm not saying that they will, but I'm saying that they will not automatically reject the proposal based only on infrequency, but will consider other factors that may lead them to reject such a rule change.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I bet no one even thinks about this.

(Administer: Your honor, may I please treat the poster as a hostile poster?)

And you still lost your bet. You were dead wrong. Nothing will change that. Not telling me I can't read, and not telling me that we don't have real basketball in Connecticut. Now, just exactly what did you bet? Be a man, admit that you were wrong, be a good loser, or just be any old kind of loser, and pay up. Or, are you a welcher?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It is not I with the reading problem.

Why haven't you figured out that I agree with almost everything that you say? Maybe tunnel vision?

I did not think the issue was who agreed or disagreed. Maybe you have a reading problem.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's not about lighted shoes. It's not about gloves. It's not about headbands with extensions. And it's no longer about which side of the lane to put the ball in play.

Then why did you bring them up? Again, just like when you post a picture about a non-related topic. But that is what you do (like the Geico commercial).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's about your insistence that the NFHS would not confider a rule change (any rule change, not only equipment, or which side of the lane to put the ball in play) due to it's infrequency. I can (and already have) came up with NFHS rule situations that we seldom, if ever, see in a real game, in either Illinois, or Connecticut.

I do not care what the NF does, they currently have no specific handling of this situation. Is that not true? I do not see a rule or mechanics reference that suggests we do anything either way. We are again left to our opinion and our practices that we decide to use. That is the only point I have ever made here. You keep talking about other issues.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Forget lighted shoes. Forget gloves. Forget which side of the lane. It's my opinion (based on some factual examples of rules that we very rarely see) that the NFHS will consider a rule change on several factors and will not automatically not consider a rule change just because it only happens only once in a blue moon. They might consider various factors like impact on the game, costs, impact on existing rules, unintended consequences, simplicity of enforcement, integrity of the game, advantage, disadvantage, improving the game, etc., but they won't automatically not consider a rule change just because it only happens infrequently. Now if it never happens, and the NFHS believes that it never will happen, then I agree with you, that it wouldn't be considered, but the topic of this thread does happen, very rarely, almost never, but not never.

Will the NFHS consider a rule change if the situation happens only once, or twice, over several years? I'm not saying that they will, but I'm saying that they will not automatically reject the proposal based only on infrequency, but will consider other factors that may lead them to reject such a rule change.

If the NF decides to have a rules change, I will worry about it at that time. Right now, there is no such rule or procedure in any way. And again you keep posting as if you need my agreement to move on.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They (NFHS) currently have no specific handling of this situation. Is that not true? I do not see a rule or mechanics reference that suggests we do anything either way ... Right now, there is no such rule or procedure in any way.

Agree 100%.

Which is exactly why several Forum members can't agree on the interpretation of this very rare event.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then why did you bring them up?

They're called examples and are used as a part (and only a part) of a proof of a generality.

Debating 101.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

They're called examples and are used to prove a generality.

OK and still has nothing to do with my point of view on this issue. When the NF comes up with a procedure, we all can tell the officials we know what they should do and why. Right now we have nothing but an opinion either way, including mine.

Peace