Throw in after TO

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What spot? The throw-in spot? There is no throw-in spot.

True. But there has to be an administering spot.

I'm not running back and forth with the player along the endline and giving the ball to them when they ask for it.

Nor am I asking where the inbounder wants the ball, potentially requiring me to move around the inbounder (boxing in) and requiring my partner to switch sides.

I'm pointing to an administering spot where they should be to initially accept the ball from me (my partner and I in the same position as before the timeout), and then I'm vocally stating and signalling "Run the endline" before subsequently bouncing (or handing) the ball to the inbounder.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

True. But there has to be an administering spot.

I'm not running back and forth with the player along the endline and giving the ball to them when they ask for it.

Nor am I asking where the inbounder wants the ball, potentially requiring me to move around the inbounder (boxing in) and requiring my partner to switch sides.

I'm pointing to an administering spot where they should be to initially accept the ball from me (my partner and I in the same position as before the timeout), and then I'm vocally stating and signalling "Run the endline" before subsequently bouncing (or handing) the ball to the inbounder.

You dug up a dormant thread just to say this? A point that you and others already made.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You dug up a dormant thread just to say this?

No, I dug it up in its entirety to add to a much more recent (and very slightly similar) "where on the endline" thread that I posted to today. Only then did I decide to tack on a new post to the two-plus year old thread.

If you read them out of order, the context may seem confusing, and I can understand your concern for this Lazarus-like raising.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Reminds me of a earlier Forum discussion we had regarding where to administer a run the endline throwin after a timeout where the inbounder wants the ball at a location that is different from the location before the timeout.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No, I dug it up in its entirety to add to a much more recent (and very slightly similar) "where on the endline" thread that I posted to today. Only then did I decide to tack on a new post to the two-plus year old thread.

If you read them out of order, the context may seem confusing, and I can understand your concern for this Lazarus-like raising.

So you couldn't let us decide to click on the link in the more recent thread? You had to add a comment to the dormant thread that added no more information?

You said this in January 2019: "Fair point. But both teams deserve to know during the timeout, not after the timeout, where the ball will be handed or bounced in. That's why mechanics dictate that we stand on that spot with the ball.

Once the ball is handed or bounced, the offensive team can go anywhere along the endline that it wants to go. "

Geez, quit always trying to suck others into your boredom.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So you couldn't let us decide to click on the link in the more recent thread? You had to add a comment to the dormant thread that added no more information?

New post wasn't added to encourage clicks, but to better respond to just another ref's questions of, "What spot? The throw-in spot?" after I came up with some new verbiage, "administration spot".

I don't see the phrase "administration spot" in any earlier posts in that very old thread, so contrary to Raymond's post, there actually is added information.

Only took me two-plus years to come up with that new verbiage.

Administration Spot © 2021 BillyMac

[BillyMac]

While researching a different topic (free throw whistle after timeout) in the current IAABO (not the NFHS) mechanics manual, I came across this: Officials do not switch positions after a timeout.

While it most certainly refers to the basketball official's definition of "switch" (as in lead and trail switch after a foul is called), maybe it can also mean the generic definition of "switch" (as in positions are not to be changed and positions are to be as prior to the timeout being granted (italicized words used to be in the IAABO mechanics manual, but are no longer there).

Yeah, I know, it's a stretch.

Is there anything in the NFHS mechanics manual regarding where to administer a run the endline throwin after a timeout where the inbounder (or coach) wants the ball at a location that is different from the location before the timeout? Especially where it would involve officials moving from their positions prior to the timeout?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Officials do not switch positions after a timeout ... positions are to be as prior to the timeout being granted.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is there anything in the NFHS mechanics manual regarding where to administer a run the endline throwin after a timeout where the inbounder (or coach) wants the ball at a location that is different from the location before the timeout? Especially where it would involve officials moving from their positions prior to the timeout?

Just realized that this is more complex than I thought. Seems easy enough (common sense) in a real game (thank God), but becomes more complex when one tries to find guidelines in the mechanics manual.

Team B scores. New Trail, is tableside. Team A player picks up the ball and steps out of bounds opposite tableside, halfway between the lane line and the sideline. Team A requests and is granted a timeout.

Where is the "administration spot"? New Trail's tableside location on the endline? Or opposite tableside, halfway between the lane line and the sideline?

Does the length (thirty or sixty) of the timeout matter? Or anywhere on the endlne as requested (at anytime before, during, or after the timeout) by the inbounder (or coach)?

Same situation, but instead of Team A player picking up the ball and stepping out of bounds, the ball has just passed through the basket and timeout is requested and granted (dead ball) to either team.

Where is the "administration spot"? New Trail's tableside location on the endline? Does the length (thirty or sixty) of the timeout matter? Or anywhere on the endlne as requested (at anytime before, during, or after the timeout) by the inbounder (or coach)?

Any guideline on this in the NFHS (or IAABO) mechanics manual?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Same situation, but instead of Team A player picking up the ball and stepping out of bounds, the ball has just passed through the basket and timeout is requested and granted to either team ... Does the length (thirty or sixty) of the timeout matter?

In a real game, using common sense, if I'm the new Trail, I will set myself up depending on the the timeout position of my partner.

If he's tableside for a thirty second timeout, I will be ready to administer on the endline opposite tableside. If he's opposite tableside for a sixty second timeout, I will be ready to administer on the endline tableside.

Keeps my partner (on the jump ball circle) from having to cross the basket line.

No citations for this, never instructed to do this, it's just me.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In a real game, using common sense, if I'm the new Trail, I will set myself up depending on the the timeout position of my partner.

If he's tableside for a thirty second timeout, I will be ready to administer on the endline opposite tableside. If he's opposite tableside for a sixty second timeout, I will be ready to administer on the endline tableside.

Keeps my partner (on the jump ball circle) from having to cross the basket line.

No citations for this, never instructed to do this, it's just me.

I might have to try that sometime. But for now, I'm fortunate to be able to work in crews of three; one of the other two is always crossing the basketline at the end of a timeout.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

I'm fortunate to be able to work in crews of three ...

Shut up.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Shut up.

Sorry, BillyMac, but with varsity @ just $59/ea. and JV @ $48/ea., I'm happy to be joined by a Center Official.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

... but with varsity @ just $59/ea. and JV @ $48/ea., I'm happy to be joined by a Center Official.

The few three person games we have here in Connecticut are almost all in the two richest local boards (near New York City), getting: varsity fee: $100.07; sub varsity fee: $64.93; same fees as two person games for the entire state. The other four local boards (in poorer parts of the state, both urban and rural), with few, or no, three person games, would consider reducing fees to encourage the use of more three person crews, but the rich guys down in the southwest corner (not my little corner) will not even consider that suggestion (would you) and fees are set statewide, not by local boards.

That's one reason (but not the only reason) why there are so few three person games in Connecticut, our urban and rural school systems can't afford three multiplied by $100.07 (or $64.93), and the rich guys in the New York City suburbs don't want their fees reduced for three person crews.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The few three person games we have here in Connecticut are almost all in the two richest local boards (near New York City), getting: varsity fee: $100.07; sub varsity fee: $64.93; same fees as two person games for the entire state. The other four local boards (in poorer parts of the state, both urban and rural), with few, or no, three person games, would consider reducing fees to encourage the use of more three person crews, but the rich guys down in the southwest corner (not my little corner) will not even consider that suggestion (would you) and fees are set statewide, not by local boards. That's one reason (but not the only reason) why there are so few three person games in Connecticut, our urban and rural school systems can't afford three multiplied by $100.07 (or $64.93), and the rich guys in the New York City suburbs don't want their fees reduced for three person crews.

I was in Central Mass through the 2014-15 season (another 'land of the crew of 2,' except for the state tournament. They also sets their rates too, V:$87 this season, and now I see that MIAA added a section on rates for using three officials (85% of the two-person crew rate). Looks like that'd be about $53 more dollars for the host for adding a third crew member. I wouldn't expect to see that happening very often (but I admit, my information is outdated).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

... I see that MIAA added a section on rates for using three officials (85% of the two-person crew rate). Looks like that'd be about $53 more dollars for the host for adding a third crew member.

My local board would jump all over that idea, but the two rich local boards downstate definitely wouldn't go for it (why would they), and the other three local boards don't care to get involved in a civil war.